ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Clete]

But at that point the overthrow was destruction, one way or the other, Nineveh would be overthrown.

Then what did God repent of, Lee?

Is the Bible wrong when it says that God repented of the disaster that God said He would bring upon the Ninevites?

You really should check other translations, and other lexicons than Strongs.

NIV Jonah 3:10 When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he had compassion and did not bring upon them the destruction he had threatened.

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

ESV Jonah 3:10 When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil way, God relented of the disaster that he had said he would do to them, and he did not do it.

NET Jonah 3:10 When God saw their actions– they turned from their evil way of living!– God relented concerning the judgment he had threatened them with and he did not destroy them.

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

NLT Jonah 3:10 When God saw what they had done and how they had put a stop to their evil ways, he changed his mind and did not carry out the destruction he had threatened.

I couldn't care less what the other translations say. I can look up what the word Nacham means just as easily as anyone else can and are you seriously suggesting that Strong's got it wrong?

The fact is that all modern translations were translated by Calvinists and Strong's didn't get it wrong and neither did the King James. The word nacham means to repent. It very simply does not mean relent and any translator who has said otherwise has to be an intentional liar. There simply isn't any way to honestly believe that relent is the correct English translation.

Even Strong's says there are various meanings for this word: "nacham naw-kham' a primitive root; properly, to sigh, i.e. breathe strongly; by implication, to be sorry, i.e. (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)."

Yes, I know, Lee. I'm the one who posted the link to the definition. Notice the complete lack of any mention of the word "relent". The fact is that the only time the word is not translated "repent" is when a Calvinist is translating the word in relation to God. The motivation is clearly doctrinal.

Do you also know that the verb form affects the meaning in Hebrew? This is the niphal form here, which has the following meanings in that form, according to Holladay: "1. regret: a) have regrets, a change of heart (1Sa. 15:29) b) allow onesf. a change of heart regarding, relent regarding (Exo. 32:12) c) abs. turn fm. former attitude, repent (Job 42:6) — 2. (allow onesf. to) be sorry: a) subj. God (Psa. 90:13) ; — 3. comfort, console onesf.: a) find comfort, consolation (Gen. 24:67); b) obtain satisfaction, take relish in (Isa. 1:24); c) observe time of mourning (Gen. 38:12); d) complete the rites of mourning, be consoled (Jer. 31:15)."

Holladay is almost certainly a Calvinist who spent years as a professor at an outrageously liberal Seminary. That isn't to say that he has no idea what he's talking about but merely that his judgment as to whether or not God can repent as the bible repeatedly says, is rather suspect.

Be the as it may, even if you want to cherry pick your translation from his list of possibilities, your theology stills crumbles to pieces because Calvinist, or any form of it cannot survive a God who can 'nacham', I don't care how you translate it.

One translation is not "The Bible," how can you be so scornful? And it is you who is playing games with the text here, Clete, or maybe Robert T. Hill, whose web site is the only place I could find this translation. Would this be the Bob Hill who has posted here, by the way?

The only place you could find the translation! Are you serious? How about the King James? Ever heard of that translation? Its only the most popular and most printed version in existence!

My answer is still that the Hebrew word is used also of changes in human hearts, Augustine saw this back many centuries ago, and said "overthrow" one way or the other was meant.

You have to be missing the point here, Lee! Or is it that you are ignoring it.

If the word is "overthrow" then what in the world did God repent of? Jonah 3:10 specifically states that God said that He would bring a disaster to the Ninevites! What translation are you going to bring forward to refute that?

I meant before they repented, why not destroy them without warning them, since a warning might cause a change of plan?

Because mercy triumphs over judgment, Lee. If you'd allow the Bible to mean what it plainly says, you'd know that.

But God's whole plan here was for judgment, says the Open View--if not, God did not actually change his mind.

What? God always wants people to repent! What Open Theist have you ever heard say otherwise?

The Open View states exactly what the Bible says! God said that He was going to destroy Nineveh in 40 days and He meant exactly that and had they not repented that is exactly what He would have done but they did repent and so God did too, just as it explicitly states in Jeremiah 18.

My friend Mr. Clete.

You are taking more liberties than you have cause to take.

See above, with Rob's question, please...

No! I do not read Rob's posts and couldn't care less what he has to say.

How is it that God then changed his mind? His plan was to a) destroy them or b) forgive them, conditioned on repentance. I agree.

No you don't! If you did, you'd be an Open Theist, you dolt!

Or are you here stating that you believe that God didn't absolutely know in advance, by whatever means, that they would repent in response to Jonah's prophesy?

If God knew in advance that they would repent then He used Jonah to tell the Ninevites a lie. If God did not know (i.e. know for absolutely certain) in advance then the both Predestination and EDF are false and the future is open. Which will you pick, I wonder?

Well, how is it that Jonah thought they would repent, and God apparently did not?

Who said that God didn't think they would repent? He did think, or at the very least hoped, that they would repent. How in the world to you think that this is somehow in opposition to Open View Theism?

Tremendous response sir, simply tremendous.

Not that tremendous, but quite true.

I have seen it!

Then why are you unwilling to apply it to your theology?

I'm not seriously proposing this, again it seems I must explain an argument ad absurdum.

Now you must tell me why Open Theism does not have this implication, if God changes his mind.

The Bible repeatedly states that God changes His mind and explains why He does so. Your absurdity is therefore blasphemous.

And your thinking that you have to explain a rational argument to me is laughable, Lee! I understood what you were doing and it was and remains blasphemous.

And no I don't have to explain anything. You have yet to establish that such a blasphemous thing follows from the premise that God changes His mind, as the Bible clearly and repeatedly teaches.

They certainly wouldn't step up to this, yet I claim this is a clear implication in their view.

That's because you cannot think clearly. You attempt to evaluate a worldview from within a different worldview that is fundamentally incompatible with it. No wonder you stay so hopelessly confused. It as though you make no real effort at all to understand. All you're interested in is knocking down men made of straw.

I use my name, actually, instead of anonymity. Look me up in the phone book if you wish!

Blessings,
Lee

That isn't the point, Lee and you know it. No one here knows who you are and no one wants to know who you are. The internet affords a level of anonymity that has never been experienced before by whole communities of people. The anonymity doesn't have to be absolute in order for it to drop your inhibitions, only significantly increased over whatever level of anonymity one is used too. You should read a book about group dynamics. A little knowledge in this area might make you more readily notice you own actions in various situations.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[patman]

Rob and Lee,

Let us explore what the "settled" of settled theology means.

Settled Theist claim the future is settled. That is hard for us to understand. The only way we mere mortals can understand what "settled" means is by looking at the past. Everything that happened in the past is settled. It can never change. Nothing we can do will ever alter those events.

Here is the prophecy :"Tomorrow I am going to $400 for being a nice guy"

As you can see, it is conditional. I might not give you $400 for 3 possible reasons. 1. I die. 2. I go broke. 3. You are mean.

Keep following me.

So let's rewrite the prophecy in our terms. The only we can understand what a settled future means is by rewording the prophecy to the past tense.

"Yesterday I gave you $400 dollars for being a nice guy."

Now let's point out the facts. Yesterday, I, in fact, did not give you $400. Therefore that statement is a lie. No conditions can save it from its falseness.

Even though "condition" 2 was true (that I was broke), that does not redeem the phrase. Why? Because that condition was also settled! That condition exists in the past, where it cannot be changed. Which means it, in fact, is not a condition but a contributing excuse as to the reason why it didn't happen.

As you can see, it is impossible to truthfully say "Yesterday I gave you $400 dollars for being a nice guy." It doesn't matter what excuses contribute to why it didn't happen, to say so when it is not so is a lie. Applying "Conditions" cannot save it.

No matter what i say, the facts are still the facts. If i knowingly say something contrary to the facts(and the facts are unchangeable) that means I lied.

Ok, I reworded it in as many different ways as I could.

Now, let's go back to the circumstances of the sentence in the future tense.

Here is the prophecy :"Tomorrow I am going to $400 for being a nice guy"

If God said this, assuming the future is settled, and it doesn't happen, it is a lie! The conditions are in the future, but guess what - they are settled too.

These conditions everyone likes to talk about don't even exist to God. To us it might look like they are real, but they in truth are not real. They are just contributing factors to an outcome - and neither the factors or the outcome can change because they are settled.

If you are right the future is just like the past. If God has access to these settled events, and makes a proclamation that does not come about, nothing can save it from being a lie.

God does not lie. Therefore the future is not settled.

 

[elected4ever]

Rob and Lee,

Let us explore what the "settled" of settled theology means.

Settled Theist claim the future is settled. That is hard for us to understand. The only way we mere mortals can understand what "settled" means is by looking at the past. Everything that happened in the past is settled. It can never change. Nothing we can do will ever alter those events.

Here is the prophecy :"Tomorrow I am going to $400 for being a nice guy"

As you can see, it is conditional. I might not give you $400 for 3 possible reasons. 1. I die. 2. I go broke. 3. You are mean.

Keep following me.

So let's rewrite the prophecy in our terms. The only we can understand what a settled future means is by rewording the prophecy to the past tense.

"Yesterday I gave you $400 dollars for being a nice guy."

Now let's point out the facts. Yesterday, I, in fact, did not give you $400. Therefore that statement is a lie. No conditions can save it from its falseness.

Even though "condition" 2 was true (that I was broke), that does not redeem the phrase. Why? Because that condition was also settled! That condition exists in the past, where it cannot be changed. Which means it, in fact, is not a condition but a contributing excuse as to the reason why it didn't happen.

As you can see, it is impossible to truthfully say "Yesterday I gave you $400 dollars for being a nice guy." It doesn't matter what excuses contribute to why it didn't happen, to say so when it is not so is a lie. Applying "Conditions" cannot save it.

No matter what i say, the facts are still the facts. If i knowingly say something contrary to the facts(and the facts are unchangeable) that means I lied.

Ok, I reworded it in as many different ways as I could.

Now, let's go back to the circumstances of the sentence in the future tense.

Here is the prophecy :"Tomorrow I am going to $400 for being a nice guy"

If God said this, assuming the future is settled, and it doesn't happen, it is a lie! The conditions are in the future, but guess what - they are settled too.

These conditions everyone likes to talk about don't even exist to God. To us it might look like they are real, but they in truth are not real. They are just contributing factors to an outcome - and neither the factors or the outcome can change because they are settled.

If you are right the future is just like the past. If God has access to these settled events, and makes a proclamation that does not come about, nothing can save it from being a lie.

God does not lie. Therefore the future is not settled.

If God makes a promise in the past and stipulates an unconditional act on His part yet we as humans reject that promise, does our rejection negate the promise or is the promise actual as if it had occurred notwithstanding any event that may have occurred in the time frame between the giving of the promise and its fulfillment?

 

[lee_merrill]

Then what did God repent of, Lee?

"Repent" is your interpretation, I say God relented of the disaster, because Nineveh was overthrown as God said, and by repentance.

I can look up what the word Nacham means just as easily as anyone else can and are you seriously suggesting that Strong's got it wrong?

I quoted Strong's, even, but there are better lexicons.

The fact is that all modern translations were translated by Calvinists...

Don't be silly, I know of one or two translators personally who are definitely not Calvinists. One of them is an Arminian who denies it! His Arminianism, I mean.

The word nacham means to repent. It very simply does not mean relent ...

Consult Holladay please--and note the many meanings even in Strong's--it does not mean only repent.

Holladay is almost certainly a Calvinist who spent years as a professor at an outrageously liberal Seminary.

How do you know he is a Calvinist? I think it unlikely, given his background.

The only place you could find the translation! Are you serious? How about the King James?

Which King James, may I ask? "And God saw their workes, that they turned from their euill way, and God repented of the euill that hee had sayd, that he would doe vnto them, and he did it not." That's how my King James reads. But I thought I would find it under Google if it was KJV, in this I was mistaken. But why do Open Theists tend to use the King James?

Because mercy triumphs over judgment, Lee. If you'd allow the Bible to mean what it plainly says, you'd know that.

You need to apply this verse to your conduct, I would say.

What? God always wants people to repent! What Open Theist have you ever heard say otherwise?

Well, this would be another contradiction, this one being within the very principles and statements of Open Theism, alas--I must add it to my list. For if God really changed his mind, then his purpose was for judgment without mercy.

... are you here stating that you believe that God didn't absolutely know in advance, by whatever means, that they would repent in response to Jonah's prophesy?

God knew they would repent, his plan was that they repent, and he sent Jonah to warn them of judgment, to bring about that repentance.

If God knew in advance that they would repent then He used Jonah to tell the Ninevites a lie.

Not if the word was "overthrow". It was.

Who said that God didn't think they would repent?

That is implied if God really changed his mind.

You have yet to establish that such a blasphemous thing follows from the premise that God changes His mind, as the Bible clearly and repeatedly teaches.

So Jonah followed God's thinking, according to the Open View, and looked for judgment, and God changed his mind, and Jonah was disappointed. The plan was spoiled by sending Jonah.

The anonymity doesn't have to be absolute in order for it to drop your inhibitions...

Let's see you post with your last name, then! It does help rein in impulses to vitriol and diatribe.

Blessings,
Lee (Merrill)

 

[RobE]

Now, let's go back to the circumstances of the sentence in the future tense.

Here is the prophecy :"Tomorrow I am going to $400 for being a nice guy"

If God said this, assuming the future is settled, and it doesn't happen, it is a lie! The conditions are in the future, but guess what - they are settled too.

These conditions everyone likes to talk about don't even exist to God. To us it might look like they are real, but they in truth are not real. They are just contributing factors to an outcome - and neither the factors or the outcome can change because they are settled.

If you are right the future is just like the past. If God has access to these settled events, and makes a proclamation that does not come about, nothing can save it from being a lie.

God does not lie. Therefore the future is not settled.

Ah, but the future is not 'settled'. That's your word and not mine. The knowledge of the future is settled, though. The future remains contingent despite certain knowledge existing.

Furthermore, I might interpret "...for being a nice guy" as a condition. A condition in which I won't receive the $400 if I'm not nice. There might be other known conditions which God did not state at this time, but were stated at another(i.e. Jessemiah 18).

Now if God said without condition that I would receive $400 tommorrow, then by all scriptural accounts of God's truthfullness, I would indeed receive it!

However, if God were to say that I would receive $400 in 40 minutes and not one minute longer, it would be fickle and dishonest if I did not receive what I was promised in exactly 40 minutes(not to mention contrary to scripture).

Does God keep His word according to open theism? Or, is word-keeping optional in that view? What do we call someone who says A and does B?

Did you read my point about Hezekiah or did you glaze over while reading my previous post. Hezekiah specifically states it was God's mercy to afflict him with a disease to bring about repentance; and, in Hezekiah's ordeal you see how unstated truth might appear dishonest when wading in shallow waters.

Isaiah 38: 1 In those days Hezekiah became ill and was at the point of death. The prophet Isaiah son of Amoz went to him and said, "This is what the LORD says: Put your house in order, because you are going to die; you will not recover."

15 But what can I say?
He has spoken to me, and he himself has done this.
I will walk humbly all my years
because of this anguish of my soul.

16 Lord, by such things men live;
and my spirit finds life in them too.
You restored me to health
and let me live.

17 Surely it was for my benefit
that I suffered such anguish.
In your love you kept me
from the pit of destruction;
you have put all my sins
behind your back.​

According to the open view if God says, "....you will not recover." and then you recover was God mistaken or dishonest?

According to the open view if God says, "I will give you $400." and then doesn't give it to you was God mistaken or dishonest?

Hezekiah says, 'neither.'. Hezekiah states, "Surely it was for my benefit that I suffered such anguish. In your love you kept me from the pit of destruction; you have put all my sins behind your back." Hezekiah understood that God was merciful and that God wanted repentance; and that God knew how to create repentance in man's soul. Hezekiah praised God for His action, not an action of healing, but of saving through a process. A process, I might mention, which began with God inflicting Hezekiah with an ailment. Look at verse 15 and 16. Relate what Hezekiah is saying vs. what happened with Nineveh. Do you see the correlation?

God states, "You will not recover," without stating, "unless you repent."
God states, "In 40 days Nineveh will be destroyed," without stating, "unless they repent."

Is it lying to state, "You will not recover" while it's known that I show mercy to those who repent?

Is it lying to state, "Tommorrow I will give you $400 dollars for being a nice guy" with the known condition of remaining nice.

Either way, is it my mercy or $400 dollars to hand out as I please? Might I plan to show mercy before stating I will punish you without being a liar? Who are you to call me a liar anyway? Do you dare stand in judgement of Him?

No. A lie would be if God says something is certain which is uncertain such as:

Israel was not slaves for as long as he said they would be.
Nineveh was not destroyed in 40 days.
Nebuchadnezzar did not destroy Tyre.
Nebuchadnezzar did not destroy Egypt.
Nebuchadnezzar did not enslave Egypt for 40ish years.
Israel did not repent when hearing the words of Jeremiah.
Jesus did not return during his own generation's lifetime
Daniel 11's last king never presented himself as he said.​

If these things were uncertain, then God did not change His mind - did He?
If these things were certain, then why according to open theism didn't they occur if God was being honest?

 

[RobE]

If God makes a promise in the past and stipulates an unconditional act on His part yet we as humans reject that promise, does our rejection negate the promise or is the promise actual as if it had occurred notwithstanding any event that may have occurred in the time frame between the giving of the promise and its fulfillment?

Good Point!

 

[lee_merrill]

According to the open view if God says, "....you will not recover." and then you recover was God mistaken or dishonest?

According to the open view if God says, "I will give you $400." and then doesn't give it to you was God mistaken or dishonest?

:jessilu:

 

[godrulz]

Ah, but the future is not 'settled'. That's your word and not mine. The knowledge of the future is settled, though. The future remains contingent despite certain knowledge existing.

According to the open view if God says, "....you will not recover." and then you recover was God mistaken or dishonest?

If these things were uncertain, then God did not change His mind - did He?
If these things were certain, then why according to open theism didn't they occur if God was being honest?

God knows reality as it is. If the future is not settled, He correctly knows it as such. If it was settled in reality (absurd), He would know it truthfully as such. You are accepting a contradiction (you might call it antinomy, contrary to logic but supposedly true anyway) by saying it is not settled yet it is known as settled. You speak with forked tongue. Contingency and certainty are not the same thing in modal logic. Trying to say it is different for God is a cop out to try to justify a preconceived, incoherent idea.

You have a false dichotomy with Hezekiah. God was neither wrong nor dishonest. As contingencies changed, God changed His mind, possible for a personal being without becoming less perfect. You probably take these revelatory statements as anthropopathismistic (is that a word?), without warrant. Take them at face value and change your theology, not the simple expression in the Word. God said He was a dead duck. This was his intention at time A. When repentance occurred at time B, God changed His mind/disposition and added years to his life. There was an implied condition, but God was still not bound to answer the prayer or respond to repentance (if a killer became a Christian, God would not have to spare him from a death penalty despite many sincere prayers...or He could intervene).

The issues of Hezekiah are not parallel to all aspects of future knowledge. His story illustrates God changing His mind showing that the future is not fatalistically fixed and prayer can and does change things. This is different than arguing for EDF of all moral and mundane choices. Whether I eat x or y is not a matter of prayer and God changing His mind. It is a matter of God distinguishing possible and certain, not declaring life or death prophetically or judicially.

God was being honest either way, but reality at A was in flux compared to B.

In the case of Jonah, there was explicit conditions, unsettledness, and responsiveness. If I tell my kid he will get candy for cleaning his room or time out for not cleaning his room, I am not being dishonest or wrong depending what potential outcome actualizes. I am being consistent with my word and character and would not be so if I did not change my mind to be faithful to what is good and right. If I made these promises and did not keep them despite the kid keeping his end of the deal, then you would have a point (which is not true with God, of course).

 

[patman]

Rob,

I think Godrulz said everything that needs to be said.

Besides, even if the existence of future events can be separated from the knowledge, to God they are as good as settled because he knows what will happen.

In my analogy, the past doesn't exist either. We just know what happened. The knowledge of what happened and speaking contrary to the events is what made it a lie.

Your explanation is no different.

 

[patman]

If God makes a promise in the past and stipulates an unconditional act on His part yet we as humans reject that promise, does our rejection negate the promise or is the promise actual as if it had occurred notwithstanding any event that may have occurred in the time frame between the giving of the promise and its fulfillment?

If God makes an unconditional promise, nothing we can do will change it. It is as good as accomplished because he is good for it. But it is not actual as in it has already happened, it is guaranteed to happen when God makes it happen.

You have to remember an idiom such as the one I used above is not stating that it is an event that occurred. It just means it will happen, and that the certainty of it happening is so perfect it is like it did happen.

Did that last post make any since to you?

 

[lee_merrill]

I think Godrulz said everything that needs to be said.

He hasn't explained to me yet, nor has any Open Theist, how God knows only a remnant will be saved, and then "all Israel," nor how God is the invincible chessmaster in the critical area of salvation--given that God is seeking to save every lost person--which I believe he is.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Philetus]

God honestly relates to us here and now.

 

[RobE]

God knows reality as it is. If the future is not settled, He correctly knows it as such. If it was settled in reality (absurd), He would know it truthfully as such. You are accepting a contradiction (you might call it antinomy, contrary to logic but supposedly true anyway) by saying it is not settled yet it is known as settled. You speak with forked tongue. Contingency and certainty are not the same thing in modal logic. Trying to say it is different for God is a cop out to try to justify a preconceived, incoherent idea.

I'm not saying it's different. Knowledge of an event might be certain while the object of that knowledge is contingent. For example: Airflight before an airplane was invented, spaceflight before the launch, knowing something will fall before you drop it, etc.....

Before you begin by stating natural things behave naturally, I want you to consider that you are natural and in nature.

You have a false dichotomy with Hezekiah. God was neither wrong nor dishonest. As contingencies changed, God changed His mind, possible for a personal being without becoming less perfect.

If God knew Hezekiah "would not recover" in the future and Hezekiah did recover, then God was mistaken or dishonest in expressing Hezekiah's outcome was certain. If God's knowledge was never certain, then what proof have you that He changed His mind?

The issues of Hezekiah are not parallel to all aspects of future knowledge. His story illustrates God changing His mind showing that the future is not fatalistically fixed and prayer can and does change things.

This wasn't Hezekiah's belief. Hezekiah states, "15 But what can I say?
He has spoken to me, and he himself has done this."

God was being honest either way, but reality at A was in flux compared to B.

Intentions are not knowledge. Is it honest to express intentions as certainties?

Hezekiah explains God's intention, "17 Surely it was for my benefit that I suffered such anguish. In your love you kept me from the pit of destruction;".

In the case of Jonah, there was explicit conditions, unsettledness, and responsiveness. If I tell my kid he will get candy for cleaning his room or time out for not cleaning his room, I am not being dishonest or wrong depending what potential outcome actualizes. I am being consistent with my word and character and would not be so if I did not change my mind to be faithful to what is good and right. If I made these promises and did not keep them despite the kid keeping his end of the deal, then you would have a point (which is not true with God, of course).

However, out of love, you might not punish your children despite making the threat. Is that a lie? Saying something is not the same as saying, "Truly, truly.....". Are threats in an attempt to model behavior lies? Might you already decide on mercy as the outcome before the threat is issued?

Or perhaps, lecture a child when the poor outcome is expected. For instance, telling a child, "I expected better behavior of you" while all along you knew what their behavior would be. All in training them to know the difference between right and wrong while not revealing all that you know. Such as setting them up for failure to give you an opportunity to teach so they might mature in their thinking. Are these deceptions?

Open theism insisting on God being equal with man just isn't going to wash. God, out of love(just as you with your child), might say A while knowing B without lying. God simply isn't revealing ALL His knowledge to us.

Now if God has no more knowledge than we do, then when God says A and it's B then a mistake has occurred, God has failed to carry out His desire, or God was dishonest up front in what He said.

So to answer Patrick's question: God is NOT lying if He says A while knowing A will not come about. God is relating/training/teaching us just as Hezekiah acknowledges for a greater good. God did NOT lie since God is under no obligation to reveal ALL His knowledge to us when He relates with us.

Rob Mauldin

p.s. If God says A is certain and B occurs(as in openess), then God is mistaken. If not mistaken then dishones because A was not certain, was it. Changing of your mind requires that A was certain. If A was uncertain, then no change was made.

 

[Philetus]

If God knew Hezekiah "would not recover" in the future and Hezekiah did recover, then God was mistaken or dishonest in expressing Hezekiah's outcome was certain. If God's knowledge was never certain, then what proof have you that He changed His mind?

God knew Hezekiah's future as certain WITHOUT REPENTANCE. God was not mistaken or dishonest with Hezekiah. In fact God was as direct and straightforward with Hezekiah as one can be: "You are going to die." Yet, God was/is long-suffering toward us, not wishing that any should perish. In a real sense one might say that God didn't change His mind; Hezekiah changed God's mind (influenced His thinking at least). God freely, lovingly responded to Hezekiah's prayer and changed the future by not immediately requiring his life. God is dynamic (not static) personal and relational.

Philetus

 

[Philetus]

God is NOT lying if He says A while knowing A will not come about. God is relating/training/teaching us just as Hezekiah acknowledges for a greater good. God did NOT lie since God is under no obligation to reveal ALL His knowledge to us when He relates with us.

:nono:

God is under the obligation of His own Holiness to speak the truth always! In Him there is no inconsistency and no contradiction of truth.

God is NOT lying if He says A while knowing A MAY NOT come about precisely because the future is open. God is relating for sure!

 

[RobE]

:nono:

God is under the obligation of His own Holiness to speak the truth always! In Him there is no inconsistency and no contradiction of truth.

God is NOT lying if He says A while knowing A MAY NOT come about precisely because the future is open. God is relating for sure!

This would hold true, according to your own thinking, if God said, "I might destroy Nineveh in 40 days"; but, alas, God did not say this and Nineveh was not destroyed. How do you justify your statements above?

"God is under the obligation of His own holines to speak the truth always!"

Seems contradictory with "God is NOT lying if He says A while A MAY NOT come about"(or be true if you prefer).

In the first statement: You insist God is obligated to say all that He knows just as you claim He has done in your proof against Him knowing of Nineveh's repentance.

In the second statement: You insist God is not lying if He doesn't reveal ALL that He knows just as I have claimed about this situation from the beginning.

Which is true? Must God say ALL that He knows such as instead of "You will not recover" must He say, "you might not recover!" as was obviously the case.

Or, would you beg the argument of implied understanding, which you won't allow us, to substantiate your claims that God changes His mind(or that God lied if He foreknew the outcome of Hezekiah living).

If your statement "God is under the obligation of His own holines to speak the truth always!" is true(and it is true), then how is it that Hezekiah did recover and Nineveh was not destroyed. Apply your own defense to mine and we'll call it a day.

I understand that open myopia will probably conceal the truth that your argument validates my own with the exception of "precisely because the future is open." In my case the precision would be brought about because of God's other decrees such as in Jeremiah 18(and those decrees which speak of God relenting and showing mercy to those who would repent).

God might tell us "you will not recover" to cause us to repent and bring about the desired and foreknown act of mercy. All the while knowing that recovery was an option just as Hezekiah and the Ninevites foreknew themselves.

In your case saying "you will not recover" with no unspoken truths amounts to a mistake. Or if you stick by the idea that "God does not lie" then you have to ask yourself why a recovery occured. If you say that the recovery was never certain, then how might God say "you will not recover" when the truth was "you might not recover". Also, how is a change proven if "you will not recover" was never certain to begin with.

 

[RobE]

God knew Hezekiah's future as certain WITHOUT REPENTANCE. God was not mistaken or dishonest with Hezekiah. In fact God was as direct and straightforward with Hezekiah as one can be: "You are going to die." Yet, God was/is long-suffering toward us, not wishing that any should perish. In a real sense one might say that God didn't change His mind; Hezekiah changed God's mind (influenced His thinking at least). God freely, lovingly responded to Hezekiah's prayer and changed the future by not immediately requiring his life. God is dynamic (not static) personal and relational.

Philetus

You're right. God is personal and relational. However this doesn't disprove His fore-knowledge of persons or His foreknown relations with them. You conclude a change of mind with no substantiation of your claim.

Hezekiah had a different understanding of the situation than you do.......

Isaiah 38: 1 In those days Hezekiah became ill and was at the point of death. The prophet Isaiah son of Amoz went to him and said, "This is what the LORD says: Put your house in order, because you are going to die; you will not recover."

15 But what can I say?
He has spoken to me, and he himself has done this.
I will walk humbly all my years
because of this anguish of my soul.

16 Lord, by such things men live;
and my spirit finds life in them too.
You restored me to health
and let me live.

17 Surely it was for my benefit
that I suffered such anguish.
In your love you kept me
from the pit of destruction;
you have put all my sins
behind your back.​

God freely, lovingly responded to Hezekiah's prayer and changed the future

There was no change possible if the future wasn't certain to begin with. If certain to begin with how could it be changed. Your chicken and egg logic won't lead you to any truth whatsoever. Your logic would leave us in the same pigeon-hole.

Philetus, I know we've spent a significant amount of time discussing this issue on opposite sides. I would like to suspend our antagonistic relationship for a couple of posts and figure out the dilemna together.

1. How is change possible unless the outcome is certain to begin with?
2. If the outcome is certain then how might an outcome be changed?

I, for one, don't believe in fate so am unable to accept that it is impossible to make a change. In fact, if change is possible, God is able to do it.

Rob Mauldin

 

[patman]

He hasn't explained to me yet, nor has any Open Theist, how God knows only a remnant will be saved, and then "all Israel," nor how God is the invincible chessmaster in the critical area of salvation--given that God is seeking to save every lost person--which I believe he is.

Blessings,
Lee

Yeah we have Lee. Very directly at times.

Godrulz answer is open for your education just like Rob. You are welcome to think of it as directed at you too.

Back to your "no one answered" plee, I have to say "so what?" Even though It has been explained over and over again to you, let's say no one did. What does that mean? Does it make O.T. wrong because no one has an answer?

Lee, do you know how many unanswered questions exist in the world? If we go by your logic, nothing is real.

 

[patman]

I'm not saying it's different. Knowledge of an event might be certain while the object of that knowledge is contingent. For example: Airflight before an airplane was invented, spaceflight before the launch, knowing something will fall before you drop it, etc.....

To use future knowledge to alter the future means 2 things. 1. What you knew was not the settled "knowledge". 2. The future is not settled. Why? Because the future you knew didn't actually happen.

There is only what might have happened, and what did happen. And like the song says "Everybody knows, Almost doesn't count." Especially when it comes to proclaiming facts.

But for arguments sake, lets try it with your assertions:

Lets say you truly have settled future knowledge. Lets say you can still speculate on other possibilities of future actions. Lets say you can act on those speculations.

Now that we allow for these factors you will be able to see that the outcome is not changing the future.

How?

Whatever actions you take are in the future. Because of that, you have settled knowledge of those actions. You foresaw yourself considering the possibilities and then taking an actions to avoid a speculation. And then you saw yourself carrying out that action to avoid a speculation.

In the end, you knew the facts of what WILL happen. You knew every circumstance that lead to that eventuality. So we are still at the same place we were with my last post.

What was that again?

Oh yes. To knowingly say something will happen other than what will happen is a lie. Possibilities and conditions do not matter.

Everybody Knows Almost Doesn't Count.

Lets again use the settled "knowledge" past as an example for the settled future "knowledge".

Joe was stopped at a traffic light when it turned to green. Joe knew to look both ways before going just in case someone ran the red light from the other direction. This time it was a good thing he did, because a huge Truck full of a poisonous gas ran the red light. Had he went on, it was obvious the truck would have hit him, broke open and spilled the gas killing everyone around, including Joe. But because Joe looked both ways before going through a red light, he didn't die.

Joe goes home and tell his wife "I died today at a traffic light when a truck hit me and poisoned me with the gasses it was moving."

According to your logic, Rob, Joe told his wife the truth.:kookoo:

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

OVers,

If it could be proven that EDF doesn't eliminate free will choices, would Open View
still exist? This seems to be the main point of contention...

I'm not sure that the often used syllogism proves that free will choices are eliminated. It just proves that what is foreknown is carried out.