An open challenge to all closed theists

[1Way]

Z Man - You said

Because they were never destroyed.

in answer to the question

Why do you consider God's promise to destroy Nineveh a threat?

So I suppose then you consider Jeremiah a false prophet because His prophetic word (Jer 18:7-10) never came to pass. Your reasoning is plain and simple, if God said it, it must come to pass, so naturally if it does not come to pass, you assume it was never literally and honestly God's will to do it in the first place. Your theological cart is before the horse of God's word.

So it appears that you invalidate the teaching of the Potter and the Clay (it can not happen, "God can not change"), and you also invalidate all divine repentance teachings (God not doing what He previously was going to do = change) in order to hold to closed theism instead.

 

[Yorzhik]

If that was the case, the question arises again:

Why did God send Jonah?

If His warning towards the Ninevites was a promise, why did He put Jonah through all that trouble to get the message to the Ninevites? If God's intention was to destroy them, why even bother warning them?

To give the people an opportunity to show true repentance. And perhaps to some extent: To give the good people time to get out. And/or To give Jonah time to proclaim the destruction and time for his word to get around a city that was 3 days journey big. Or another reason that God didn't mention.

Just because a parent promises a spanking to a child, doesn't mean that the promise wasn't intended when the punishment was decided on. It is only destructive if one warns of a spanking when the intention is not to give a spanking.

Why do you consider God's promise to destroy Nineveh a threat?

Because they were never destroyed.

I am capable of not carrying out a discipline that I did intend. So I am more capable than God according to you.

Depends on what that "something" is. Man always fails in "pleasing" the Lord.

This is only true if you change the meaning of the passages in the bible that say that God is pleased with someone.

The Lord desires for us to repent and be holy, but no man ever meets His expectations.

No-one ever repents? We are not perfect, I'll agree, but you don't intend to include repentance with that do you?

But as far as the display of His own glory, God always gets that, no matter what. He'll do anything to display His glory. God is in the business of self-exaltation. He's way more concerned with Himself than He is about our comfort and happiness. In fact, in the act of displaying His glory, we are given what pleases us the most. Just ask Job...

That is frequently true, but not always. I mean, God doesn't always get what he wants.

I don't think you understand what I am saying. If a promise is made to a mis-behaving child that they can expect a spanking when they get home, then of course they will become repentant! I don't know of one child that enjoys spankings! Speaking from experience, when my mom told my dad that I had been "bad" for the day, and my dad said for me to go to my room, I went there with my tail between my legs. I was really sorry for what I had done, and I told my dad and mom too! I didn't want no spanking. But I got it anyways. It was promised, and I got it! That taught me to never misbehave again!

Now, if my dad tells me to expect a spanking when he gets home, and then everytime he sees my "sad eyes" he backs out of punishing me, eventually I'm going to learn to just look sad everytime he promises to spank me. It's not teaching me anything. The actual carrying out of the punishment is what teaches us lessons.

If God makes promises to do one thing, yet "changes" His mind about it later, then He is a liar. On the flipside, if God gives a warning, and it changes the hearts of those whom He has warned, then His purpose is carried out! God never "intended" to destroy Ninevah, or else He would've never sent Jonah.

I do understand what you are saying. You don't understand what I'm saying.

This may help clarify. I'm sure it never happened to you, and I'm sure you have trouble imagining it. But there can be situations where a good parent, that normally never fails to give a spanking when one was promised, does not give a spanking. If the a life change that the parent was hoping for is evident, then the parent has the authority and capability to change their mind. So the question is: is it possible for a parent to change their mind, if a) they are normally consistent with spankings (let's say in this example that never in the past have they ever promised a spanking and not delivered) and b) they see the life change they are hoping for in the child (not just the sad eyes or constant "I'm sorry's").

Is it possible? And don't forget, God has the advantage of seeing inside someone's heart.

 

[1Way]

This is the tenor of this entire debate. Demonstrated by correlating (hypothetical) example.



General overview


OV
The open view (more so) reasons by quoting God's word and rests it’s case on that. We literally accept it without violating it's contextual development.

Concerning His previous spoken honest intended course of action (What God said He “was going to DO”).

God’s word says that He repented from it (changed His mind) and did not do what He said He would DO.

CV
The closed view (more so) reasons extra biblically and rests their case primarily on sources other than what is specifically provided by scripture. They reject (void of meaning) entire portions of scripture that deny their view and they also violate the context by doing so. And they effectively make God out to be a liar in order to maintain their views as being more authoritative. All while claiming “spiritual” correctness.

Concerning His previous spoken honest intended course of action (What God said He “was going to DO”).

Who cares about what God said about Him changing His intended course of action by not doing what He said He would do, the closed view maintains that God can not change even if God says He does, so we are right and that is that.



Specific arguments


OV

1 God’s word is true and authoritative
It is a clear case of divine repentance against complying
with what God said and/or thought He was going to do

So what do the words mean then if they don’t literally mean what they literally say?

• Jonah 3:10 subsection part b
  ... and God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.

CV
It does not mean (bla bla bla, wha wha wha, bla wha bla) and it does not mean (bla bla bla, wha wha wha, bla wha bla), man changed and therefore God simply did not need to punish them, so God did not change and that is that.

OV
That does not tell me what those specific words mean, it tells me that you are ignoring and perhaps violating them instead. If you do not have a suitable (specific) biblically provided replacement meaning for the text in question, then you have no standing to effectively deny it’s literal meaning.

CV
Oh, it means what it says alright, but there’s simply no Change in God.

OV
You mean where God says that

• He did not do what He said He would do, and He did not do it,

you mean THAT means that

• He DID DO what He said He would DO? And He did do it?

CV
God always gets His will done, it all happened with out any change in God. Your wrong and we’re right, stop trying to confuse us with details.
:doh:


OV

2 The context denies the prophesy message was conditional
It was honestly going to be a national disaster and
it was honestly going to be brought upon them

It could not have been a conditional warning of possible destruction as in “shape up or else”. God described the prophesy with the following contextual build up. This is the truth, and you are in error for violating scripture. Please reconsider the following.

The prophesied “overthrow” was said to be:

1. understood as lethal (3:9)
2. A national disaster (3:10)
3. that God would “bring upon them” (3:10)
4. correlated with God’s anger verses His lovingkingness (4:2)
5. correlated with God doing harm (4:2)

And remember, God recorded this account after the fact of it all happening. He would not have allowed the context to be falsifying what actually did happen.

If a nation repents from doing great wickedness, and puts their faith in God for their very lives, that is a good and righteous thing, it is not harmful, it is not a demonstration of God’s disapproving anger, it is not a national disaster that was brought upon them. So every single contextual consideration about God’s prophesy contradicts the idea that it was conditional, including the conclusive example, that God said concerning that prophesy of intended course of action, that He did not do it, God did "not" comply with what He said He would do.

CV
No, since God sent Jonah ahead of time, the condition is only obvious, get real and read your bible, we’re right and your wrong. They repented which is what God ordained the entire time, they were overthrown, so God accomplished His intentions.

OV
You argue that God did overthrow Nineveh by their repentance. But God said that concerning what He said He would do, He did not do it, so if the prophecy was primarily or literally to get them to repent, and they did repent, they why did God lie when He said that He did not accomplish what He said He would do?

CV
God does not lie, and He does not change, your wrong, we’re right. Actually, it was a conditional prophesy, that is why we know that God never changed His mind, since it was conditional, there was no possible way for God to reverse from complying with His prophesy. It was a shape up or else conditional prophecy, why else would God send His prophet 40 days in advance if He only had in mind destroying them.

OV
The conditionality rests within God, His word was not conditional, it was honest and truthful just as is described in scripture. For God’s nature to hold conditionality, necessarily means He can change depending upon what happens with newly brought about circumstances.

CV
No, the condition was not in God, it was in His word. God did do what He said He would do.



OV

3 The law of non-contradiction and moral integrity
It’s dishonest to contradict the truth
even if you use a lie to cover up a lie
to cover up a lie

Surely you can see the dishonesty in:

1. Absolutely and perfectly knowing that you will not do something
   and then
2. lying by saying you will do it anyway
   and then
3. lying again (after the fact of you not doing it) by saying, that you repented and did not do what you (honestly) said you would do, and you did not do it.

Making double statement that this was an issue of intended action, it was unequivocally an issue of honest course of action.

CV
No, it just was not, we don’t care what you think it means, your wrong, we’re right, God never intended on destroying them.

OV
No, your wrong for violating what God’s word plainly says, along with violating the entire context involved, and for promoting your manmade traditions that contradict scripture, voiding scripture and replacing it’s meaning with nothing (scripturally and contextually) fitting.

CV
We’ve already answered all your questions, just because you don’t like them does not mean their wrong.

OV
You have? Then what does Jonah 3:10 subsection part b specifically mean?

CV
(go back to the beginning and replay the same story without ever answering the question about what those words mean.)
:doh:


Conclusion


What a state of affairs! I love it that this is going on in the thread who’s entire quest is over one single bible conformity challenge, and yet not one single closed theist has even come close to answering it. They are absolutely terrified of the text because it is in direct contradiction against their beliefs and thus it perfectly denies their viewpoint, so they just ignore and violate it because there is no middle ground on this issue. As long as they believe they are right (i.e. their false manmade presupposition of classic divine immutability), then they can not agree with God repenting as is literally and repeatedly described in scripture. The two ideas are contradictory and can not be reconciled.


Conform your faith to the bible!!! :up:

Don’t violate against the bible
because of manmade tradition! :down:

 

[1Way]

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


I will keep reflecting God’s word, because praise God His word never returns void, let alone goes out void. Closed viewers are frustrated and (arguably) self condemned for voiding scripture of meaning and replacing that meaning with nothing. Here’s God’s authoritative word over that offense. Please trust and obey God.
We should always trust, not correct/overturn God’s word.

Pr 30:5 Every word of God [is] pure; He [is] a shield to those who put their trust in Him. 6 Do not add to His words, Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.

God’s word never returns void.

Isa 55:11 So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me void, But it shall accomplish what I please, And it shall prosper [in the thing] for which I sent it.

In vain worship and incredulous hypocrisy, men void God’s word of it’s divinely given meaning and authority.

Mt 15:6 ‘then he need not honor his father or mother.’ Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. 7 "Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: 8 ‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. 9 And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’"

Ultimately man must submit to God’s word.

Ro 3:4 Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written: "That You may be justified in Your words, And may overcome when You are judged."

You don’t have to agree with me, but you do have to obey God if you want to please Him.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

1Way,

when God changes his mind, do you believe that this is also a change in God? or is it possible for God to change his mind without having him change?

 

[Yorzhik]

Let's see. If I'm capable of changing my mind without changing who I am, then God must be at least as capable as me.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Yorzhik

Let's see. If I'm capable of changing my mind without changing who I am, then God must be at least as capable as me.

thats what i would think too. but 1Way's posts have been making it sound like God is changing whenever he changes his mind. i just wanted to know if that was what he intended or not.

 

[Yorzhik]

Oh. I'm not reading it that way. What part?

 

[1Way]

I enjoy these questions. Yes, I think God changes when He changes His mind. But how much do you actually change when you change your mind. I think it is a modest but very real change.

The only way you can separate God from a change that He undergoes, like changing His mind, would be to say that God's mind is not part of His being, and that seems nonsense to me. So changing your mind is a concrete real world change in yourself. You were honestly going to do something, which may have involved your will and desires, and then later you honestly changed your mind and did not do it. That unequivocally means you actually changed.

God does not change in order to get to become a better or a different God. God changes within His own being and nature in a way that is fully consistent with His being and nature. I suggest that change is a natural part of who God is. God can actually change just as man can actually change. But change is not a part of every aspect of who God is. I believe that God is changeless (or eternal) in terms of His goodness and love and character and ways.

But some open theists go beyond that, they suggest that God can actually change and sin or do evil, and I have problems going that far. But I also believe that God was honestly tempted to sin just as we are, and if He could not possibly sin, then He could not have been tempted as we are, because I know from real experience, that temptations can honestly lead to sin, and that if I could not possibly sin, then such an thing would not really be an actual temptation. So that is a very strong argument that God could actually sin if He was honestly tempted and He honestly wanted to. Sorry if that is not clear, but I see tension there between both sides, and no clear answer.

Here's another angle. We can change, right? We are lower than God, yet we can actually change. So is it so hard to imagine that a greater being that us can also change and yet remain God? No, it's quite elementary. I believe that the reason we have trouble with approaching some things from certain angles is because we have been so engrained with a certain mindset about God since forever, and to really shake off false thinking can be a somewhat challenging process.

Also, even though the incarnation is stated that God took on the likeness of sinful flesh, it also says that Jesus was truly man and truly God.

Colossians 2:9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;

1 John 4:3 and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the [spirit] of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.

They say He was the God Man, the call Him God incarnate. So obviously God had not existed as being born of the flesh from all eternity, yet Jesus was actually born of the flesh. The incarnation of God in man naturally represents a huge change in God that goes beyond a change of mind, and yet, because change is part of the makeup of who God actually is, therefore any such change does not make God in to a different God, it just allows God to change on an appropriate and "as needed" basis.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

1Way states earlier in his make fun of closed theism post "Oh, it means what it says alright, but there’s simply no Change in God."

this statement is in reference to Jonah 3:10 where God changes his mind and repents from what he was going to do. so it definately sounds like 1Way believes God is changing here and all i see going on is him changing his mind.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

i think i understand you a little better now 1Way. i just wasn't sure what you meant by "God changes" when all that was changing was his mind. i guess i overlooked that indeed, the mind is a part of that person so if it changes, the person has changes, although only a bit and certainly not in a bad way.

 

[Yorzhik]

GIT, Oh. I see. When I see "God changes" my defenses come up against the "every change is from good-to-bad or bad-to-good" claim made by Calvinists. Sorry, yes, God changes, but remains perfect.

 

[1Way]

Yorzhik has it right I believe. See, I go further than just a mental change, the incarnation was a real change in God's being, but it was not a deviation from His nature, like going from a fox to a turtle, God did not become a new or different God, but the change that God experienced because of the incarnation was very significant and went well beyond just a mental change.

The more important issue to remember about change is not how much or where, but of what kind. And that is where I think GIT is on the right track too. It need not be a bad change, but even the incarnation was a change in God that happened within God that was fully "in kind" with what it means to be God. Sort of like dogs are all one kind of being, yet you can have all sorts and shapes and sizes from 500lbs to 5 lbs. Many different sorts of dogs, but they are all "one kind", they are all of a "kind" of dog. God is very capable, and the fact that He changes in some ways like we can, does not imply any bad or fault in God. Like Yorzhik has said before, he changes his mind, yet he remains who he is, same with God.

Yorzhik once apon a time, was a non arobic environment kind of being, that is to say, he did not breath oxygen through his lungs, he was more like an under water being but not exactly like a fish,,, (smile),,, while he was still in his mothers womb. And then after he was born and started breathing, that transformation from liquids to air did not make him into a different kind of being, but the change was significant. Shucks, go back 9 months or so, and when Yorzhik first started out, he was an undivided egg with some molecules and stuff, and although I'm sure Yorzhik would think such a thing to be pretty keen, but really (chuckles) he looked more like a microscopic rubber ball. (That was for fun, and I think Yorzhik wouldn't mind me picking on him to illustrate some of these changes, we all went through the same things and many more too.) So change within a being can be extreme, and yet not pretend to alter the kind of being that you are.

And this next thought might help you undestand some thigns better too. You know, we can repent like God can and not because of sin! That might sound sort of non-profound, but I think it is really good to remember that divine repentance represents a very realistic and simple change that man is very very familiar with. Consider. If we can do it, and it is not sinful or ungodly to repent and not do what we previously thought we were going to do after the situation totally changes, then it seems absurd to think that God could not do it too!!! That should give the more reasonable closed theists something to chew on for a while.

 

[Yorzhik]

I don't think CV'ers are going to answer. Maybe when the "hot" CV-OV thread cools down, a CV'er will come back here and give it another go.

I have to admit, that ZMan with "it means exactly what it says... God planned the change" is the best answer so far. So, can they quit with the "anthropomorphism" or "anthropopathism" stuff that has been bandied about in the past?

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Yorzhik

I don't think CV'ers are going to answer. Maybe when the "hot" CV-OV thread cools down, a CV'er will come back here and give it another go.

I have to admit, that ZMan with "it means exactly what it says... God planned the change" is the best answer so far. So, can they quit with the "anthropomorphism" or "anthropopathism" stuff that has been bandied about in the past?

i don't see why whether it was planned or not makes a difference. in a company, there may be a plan to change how things are done that doesn't happen for 6 months to come. but when it does come, things actually do change. so why should the CVer be able to say that since God planned the change, it wasn't really a change at all?

 

[Yorzhik]

Great point! (CV'ers?)

 

[1Way]

GIT and Yorzhik
GIT - I think you and Yorzhik are doing a great job discussing this issue. And I suppose that you also know the problems that the CV entails. And sorry if this serves to scare the CV'ers away, but info is a good thing. I welcome their input. For the CV, God's immutability (no change at all) comes first. It is that single concept or doctrine that is the natural basis for all of uniquely Calvinistic theology, especially clarified in the theological acronym TULIP. Every one of those doctrines are the result of classic immutability. John Sanders, who is a wonderful open theist and yet strangely considers himself reformed (dispite rejecting TULIP), and wants to reform the reformed faith (from pesonal meeting several years ago), anyway, he agrees (and stated much better) with my observation that once you dismiss classical immutability, then TULIP unravels and looses the foundation that it rests upon. Divine immutability underwrites their entire theological persuasion in terms of TULIP.

So if I have the opportunity, I would not argue about TULIP, because if you never deal with the foundation for TULIP, then those pagan derived flowers will pop back up again, because TULIP is the natural result of classic divine immutability, you need to eliminate "immutability", then the rest should take care of itself.

If you first granted divine immutability as true, saying that God does not change in any way, then that would obviously and naturally affect your entire theology. You can never allow God to learn something new or to actually change in any way because that is a logical impossibility.

So It is not conceivable for them who are consistent with the closed view sort of faith, to allow God any change. They must always try to maintain that God never changes. For them, for God to plan a "so called" change is not the actual truth of the matter, for them, for God to plan a "so called change" means "no change in God's plans at all", it was God's plan from all eternity, so no real change of plans is allowed. So frankly, it is the former statement that gives them a problem, that "God planned a change". They can not remain consistent and hold that statement true, for them, better is, "God planned a seeming change", that in God's eyes, represents no change at all.

Now to pick on Yorzhik's comment. This is problematic too. They do not accept God's word as meaning what it says. Yes they think God purposefully said what He said, but the change aspect of God's word is exactly false, they deny God any change at all. And that fact is really at the heart of this entire thread, demonstrating that the CV consistently has to openly reject the meaning behind all positive divine repentance teachings (or any divine change teachings, including the incarnation). They say that God NEVER changes His mind, because God never changes in any way, so they try to alter the meaning of these words of God changing His plans into being just a figure of speech, which is what you said (so your are also partly right). But, here is the kicker, they never give the meaning of the figure! Never! Even figurative speech makes meaningful sense once you have figured out the figurative use. It is when you do two things that the figure then is sufficiently founded. (1) You claim it is a figure based upon reasonable evidence and show sufficient support, and secondly, (2) with this understanding, you actually explain what the figure means. That is a universal fact for demonstrating what a figure means. Sometimes you can get away with just explaining the meaning of the figure, because the reasoning and support may be quite naturally assumed, but if you do not or can not explain why it is a figure, then your explanation may remain tentative until it is properly founded. But strangely, these folks don't even explain what the figure means! So they have no reasonable standing to claim it is not a literal message.

Instead, the angle some theologians and CV thinkers have taken is to say that this figure is a type that really cannot be explained. God is simply talking to us in a veiled way, but not in a way that is perfectly accurate and literally truthful, it is supposed to be figuratively appropriate, but that is about all they can do for explaining the meaning, since that is about all that is known about it. There is a theological term they sometimes use, called "condescension", which is the "mode of communication" from God to man. It means that God talks down to our level. And so they think that sometimes God purposefully limits or distorts the information that He gives us, sort of like parents sometimes do when they do not reason with the kids what they want them to do, they just tell them what to do and what to believe. If you give young children too much info, and they are not mature enough to handle it, then it will just confuse matters instead of helping matters. So in the mind of the CV'er, God has some good reason to speak in veiled or hidden and figurative ways that also contradict the truth of the matter concerning God experiencing change, and because they believe that God does that on purpose, we expect that some things really can not be fully understood until we get to the next life, we just have to go against the natural meaning of God's word in the (dubious) presupposition that He somehow wants us to not trust Him at His word whenever it comes to any divine change.

I think that is the best answer for the figurative use concerning divine repentance, and if you look closely at all of the responses that have been given, condescension is implied but not consistently stated. See, this idea of condescension puts a real damper on the natural presumptions that God's word is true and He never lies. And so the Calvinistic types tend to soft pedal this stuff and try to be more devotional sounding instead of factual truth finders. I love the truth that set me free, and the part of that truth is that God honestly changes, He is not immutable in the classic and CV sense, and so we can trust and take God's word more and more in an honest and truthful way, instead of developing an entire theology to support one single errant idea, and that is classic immutability. So TULIP, which is what Calvinism is all about, disintegrates if you but grant that classic immutability is wrong. And that is exactly what the OV does, God can and does indeed change, and that is exactly what the CV do not allow God to be able to do. Their God is less capable than ours because although we OV'ers allow God all the power and ability to do exactly what the CV'ers say He does, we also grant that God could choose to allow change to be an authentic part of reality, and yet even though God does not know the entire future exhaustively, He still remains in control and nothing can vanquish what depends solely upon Himself, because He is faithful and true.

And from the best of my knowledge, no consistent CV'er has claimed that God has that much capability, because if they say that God could created a world where the future is partly uncertain and He created truly authentic free will moral agents, then that would deny their most precious doctrine that says that God can not change in any way. See, it's not that God may not change in any way, it's that God CAN NOT change in any way. So it is only manifest that their God is less capable than our God, and our understanding of God happily conforms to scripture that they can not allow for their view.

Our view is more biblically conforming, and their is less so, they contradict scripture and rest their case on the manmade supposition of condescension and meaningfully void scripture of meaning, and replace it with nothing, they do not know what it means, they have to wait till God personally explains it to us, and that is only if God planned to do that, only then will we know why God seemed to have misled us the way He did. So meaningfully speaking, and specifically concerning divine change, their faith is specifically ignorant from a general understanding, and ours is meaningful from the specifics and the general. If classic immutability is the more important issue, then you can easily end up with the CV, but if taking God's word as being honest and true and faithful is more important, then the OV makes specific and general sense, it is more meaningful and I believe more respectful of God's word. The reasoning for the CV in terms of classic immutability is most clearly found in the writings of Plato and the Pagan Greeks, and we know that these thinkers influenced the early Christian thinkers too. But, if you do not accept this pagan precept, and you simply allow the bible to explain how it is that God does indeed change, then the closed view is not viable, in fact, it is denied for being false and literally contradiction all divine change ideas in scripture.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by 1Way

Godrulz and Yorzhik
Godrulz - I think you and Yorzhik are doing a great job discussing this issue.

my name is actually GIT, not godrulz

 

[1Way]

God Is Truth (=s GIT) - Man oh man, sorry about that(!), thanks for the notice, corrections made.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by 1Way

This is the tenor of this entire debate. Demonstrated by correlating (hypothetical) example.



General overview.......

This is a great post!

To read the whole thing click the POTD link or look back to the last page Post # 363.

POTD :first: