Even closed theists distinguish unconditional and conditional prophecies and covenants.
Common views of God and time.
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
Even closed theists distinguish unconditional and conditional prophecies and covenants.
Changing one's mind may be wisdom and righteousness if the contingencies change. God would not be merciful if He could not change His mind about pronounced judgments. If the people change, God can change. If they do not, God can stand firm (Jonah).
Hezekiah is a clear e.g. of a change of mind as is Gen. 3 after the FALL. If He could not change His mind, He would be a liar and impersonal. Parents wisely change their mind without being wrong or fickle as their children obey or disobey. Some parents do change in a fickle way, but that does not mean all changes are in this category.
If God purposes to rain down plagues, who can stop them?! His knowledge of the future is anticipatory, but certain to become actual, if He unilaterally and unconditionally brings it about. Who can stop the Second Coming of Christ? This does not mean God is omnicausal (your view...problematic for evil). God's will can be rejected on a personal level (hence, hell...Lk. 7:30; Matthew 23:37). This does not thwart the eschaton, but it does short circuit God's best for you if you reject His love and grace. The alternative is determinism at the expense of love, freedom, relationships, responsibility, etc., a higher price than limited risk at an individual vs cosmic level.
I think he may have read this, but he needs to reread it until he 'gets it':
(second ed.)
http://www.amazon.com/God-Who-Risks-Theology-Providence/dp/0830828370
(I have read it, AMR, before you accuse me of just posting drive-by links I know nothing about)
Lighten up Frances!
You are not currently in the one on on section, or in your college classroom where people are expected to remain silent until spoken to. The open forum is by design, a bit of a free for all. Carry on.
P.S. My guess would be that the Sadducees and the Pharisees of Jesus' time, being the academics that they were, had their own list of "great theologians".
:jawdrop: I had no idea!
I'm no great open theist theologian - but I'm definitely leaning that direction. Open theists believe that God's actions can change without his nature changing.
A very imperfect example. I strive to be a good parent to my children (my nature so to speak). I promise to take them to McDonalds (their favorite restaurant) because they have been very good. Before dinner time arrives we get an all expense trip to Disney and we have to leave immediately. I do not fulfill my promise to take them to McDonalds.
The reverse situation could also occur. My oldest daughter could fight with her sister (unfortunately all too common) and part of their punishment is no dinner out.
Or even a 3rd scenario - the whole family comes down with stomach flu and we cancel dinner out.
Has my nature changed? Has there been sin on my part? No, my actions have changed based on changing circumstances.
Take a look at your calendar or to do list. How much are you able to accomplish as a finite human with no foreknowledge? How much happens that you intend to do? If you planned to get 50 people together in one place at a certain time - could you do it? How much more so can our Mighty God do? (even without foreknowledge).
Dawn
Me neither. Still don't. Never heard the idea that God's nature changes because of an indeterminate future. I really don't see the logic involved.
always_learning
New member
Ok.... another 15 minutes of reading, and I'm all caught up.
Before I make my point, may I request that we all cut back on the personal stuff? It's really hard to follow the thread when half of it is about how unintelligent someone is.
All right, back on topic....
Question: if God changes His mind, what does this verse mean?
I'll be waiting for your response to that one, open theists...
The Graphite, you once again referenced Joshua and God's promise to the Israelites, after STP has answered that argument with Scripture... I will repost it here.
He said I will give you the land, all of it... if you observe to do all the law of Moses. Get over it, God fulfilled His promise; He gave them the land, as long as they obeyed His law. When they did not, He took it back from them. He didn't go back on His word; He was being just and righteous, and doing what he promised.
I don't understand how is even considered a debate, whether God is limited or not.
If God is limited by time, why is He not limited by space, or gravity, or inertia?
If God is restricted to time, how is He able to listen to everyone's prayers at once?
If God is restricted by time, then time is more powerful than God.
Point is, God is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-seeing... and He doesn't use tricks, or illusions, or angels, to be that way. God can exist outside of time, because He is bigger than time.
And those of you who try to limit God to your finite, human, three dimensional reasoning may laugh, but I fully believe God can create a 4-sided triangle if He needs too. That is part and parcel of being all-powerful.
Before I make my point, may I request that we all cut back on the personal stuff? It's really hard to follow the thread when half of it is about how unintelligent someone is.
All right, back on topic....
Question: if God changes His mind, what does this verse mean?
I'll be waiting for your response to that one, open theists...
The Graphite, you once again referenced Joshua and God's promise to the Israelites, after STP has answered that argument with Scripture... I will repost it here.
He said I will give you the land, all of it... if you observe to do all the law of Moses. Get over it, God fulfilled His promise; He gave them the land, as long as they obeyed His law. When they did not, He took it back from them. He didn't go back on His word; He was being just and righteous, and doing what he promised.
I don't understand how is even considered a debate, whether God is limited or not.
If God is limited by time, why is He not limited by space, or gravity, or inertia?
If God is restricted to time, how is He able to listen to everyone's prayers at once?
If God is restricted by time, then time is more powerful than God.
Point is, God is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-seeing... and He doesn't use tricks, or illusions, or angels, to be that way. God can exist outside of time, because He is bigger than time.
And those of you who try to limit God to your finite, human, three dimensional reasoning may laugh, but I fully believe God can create a 4-sided triangle if He needs too. That is part and parcel of being all-powerful.
Is God limited by reality, or can he become fiction, if it brings Him glory?
And the one in Malachi...the context is that God does not change His mind in a fickle, capricious way, but is truthful and faithful. I Sam. also shows that God changes His mind on one issue, but will not (vs cannot) change His mind on another issue (based on the contingency and wisdom).
These couple proof texts are used as pretexts by those who want to make God less than personal...will not is not cannot; change consistent with His character vs man changing in an unrighteous way. The issue is moral (volitional, truth vs lie, faithful vs fickle, etc.), not metaphysical (God is x,y,z by nature and cannot do this or that).
Always learning....you have been given a plausible alternate explanation...are you open to changing your mind on the subject if it is better exegesis and a more biblical, coherent theology? Dozens of verses say that God changes His mind. A few say that He will not in some cases (the people incur wrath vs mercy, etc.). There is no warrant to make these figurative (of what?!), so change theology, not the Word.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
What in the world does this mean? You are stringing together words with no idea what they mean. What is God's ability other than His attributes? You somehow think foreknowledge is not an ability that God possesses. You think you can separate His attributes as if God only acts with a single attribute in play. When God acts, all attributes are in play, for they all inhere one another. Knowledge without power is weak, power without knowledge is dangerous. You are just not making any sense at all. God's justice is not divorced from His love, any more than His omniscience is divorced from His omnipotence.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
No. Humans change their minds because they are either fickle and capricious, or they lack sufficient knowledge--they are not omniscient. If one possesses all knowledge, then there is absolutely no reason to change one's mind. To do implies the knowledge they possessed that originally motivated the decision was faulty, hence they were mistaken. You are trying to sugar coat a change of mind to fit a preconception that cannot stand.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I think you need to read this answer to the above, after all it is freely downloadable. When you are prepared to discuss it point by point, let me know.
http://www.desiringgod.org/media/pdf/books_bbb/books_bbb.pdf
I think you have too much Aquinas and Anselm on the brain.
Do not confuse morals and metaphysics, volition/character and being. God is unique ontologically (sorry if you define things differently), but on a moral and personal level, we have some commonality as the image of God.
Just because you do not understand what I am saying due to your bias, does not mean that I DO NOT understand what I am saying. Ask for clarification rather than assume I am just stringing together clueless ideas that make no sense to me. They make sense to me, and I appreciate they do not make sense to you, so perhaps I can rephrase?
I agree that God's attributes and character are related, but His metaphysics/being does not negate His personal, moral, volitional nature. Your ideas of simplicity, aseity, etc. are a philosophical school of thought, while a more personal, relational approach is also a factor or more precise.
I'll try again...you are smart...you don't have to agree, but at least understand my thinking and not assume I do not because you do not (cf. assuming I do not actually read the amazon books I link).
Arminians use Is. 46 and 48 to show that God declares the end from the beginning, so He must have simple, exhaustive, definite foreknowledge. Calvinists/determinists could use the same proof text to justify the idea that God determines everything in advance and thus knows everything (I can actually defend EDF better with determinism than SFK/free will, but I don't think God actualized a mechanistic, deterministic universe, except for inanimate creation; moral creation works on love/freedom/relationship, not cause-effect).
I hope I am not getting too substantive. I am getting writer's cramp...not used to long posts, you know.
The Open Theist understanding of the proof texts (face value?) in Is. 46 and 48 comes right from the text. Without presuming SKF, EDF, or determinism, the context shows that God does determine some vs all things (specific judgments in view, for e.g., not what I will eat or drink tomorrow...beyond the text and beyond a legit application of the text...false extrapolation). The two motifs are that God settles and knows some of the future (so I will agree with those 'deterministic'/sovereignty texts that you use). However, other verses (the Open Theism verses that you must make figurative without warrant to retain bias) show that other aspects of the future are unsettled by God's sovereign choice. We work together with Him to actualize the potential future. God intervenes as much or as little as His wisdom and contingencies dictate.
The emphasis in the verse (check several versions) is God's ABILITY to bring things to pass that He declares. In Genesis, He declares a plan of redemption after the Fall (that He formulated even before the foundations of the world) and implements it when the potentiality becomes a necessity (Gen. 3, not eternity past in a decretal view). It still does not become actual until the first century. God can declare this in Genesis because He has the ability to unilaterally incarnate apart from our free will opposition. He can also declare the judgments in Revelation in advance, because He can send hail or famine whenever and however He wants (see history in the OT). Nothing can stop this, so His ability, not His prescience, ensure these things.
We do not see God declaring all of the scores of every hockey game from trillions of years ago because this is not a possible object of certain knowledge, assuming we freely play the game and God does not cause/coerce/micromanage the players to ensure outcomes (hence the futility of praying that Johnny Christian's soccer team beats Billy Christian's soccer team or praying to fix the lottery so you can give to missions?!).
The passages talk about some vs all things, ability vs prescience, omnicausality, simple foreknowlege, middle knowledge.
We must look at the wording and all relevant verses to flesh out a theology of providence, foreknowledge, predestination, nature of the future, etc.
Your assumptions about timelessness, TULIP, aseity, immutability, etc. shade or jade your conclusions. It is hard for all of us to be objectively free from our bias/preconception when we exegete or formulate theology (heuristics/problem solving, hermeneutics, critical thinking, etc. can counter this).
I believe a paradigm shift would open your eyes to a more biblical, logical, coherent position. There are many issues. My disdain for Calvinism and your disdain for OVT does not help, but I hope you can consider my content as I do yours (vs making it personal and prematurely dismissing things).
Can I clarify further the two motifs or distinction between God's ability/foreknowledge and determinism/exhaustive control? You may not agree, but give me the benefit of the doubt that I understand and find it sufficiently biblically and intellectually satifsying to adopt.
My observation is that Calvinism relies on proof texts to support preconceived ideas and does not inductively flow from the text. Apart from your higher learning and the influence of philosophy (Aquinas, etc.), I am not convinced you would come to your views or defend them the way you do just by reading Scripture.
Are your eyes as sore as my hands? Can I go back to assertions and drive by posts?:cheers:
Someone just gave analogies about parenting. You are dismissing the possibility of changing contingencies that necessitate a change in God's response (conditional prophecy like Jonah; mercy like Hezekiah; etc.).
God says that if you do not repent, then you will be judged. If you repent, then I will relent and extend mercy instead of justice. I will relent and make Saul king, because it is acceptable at this time. When Saul goes bad, God changes His mind and regrets making Him king. He was reasonable to do so at time x, but would be unrighteous and unwise to condone it at time y.
Denying free will, contingencies, etc. does not allow you to think outside the box, so mental gymnastics are required. Perhaps our aging brains makes both of us slow on the uptake. You may also have drank too much over the season. Cigars do not help the vessels either.
How is your wife? Mine continues to struggle with mobility and fatigue from MS.
It is my desire to be able to be more substantive for you (which does not exclude assertions nor necessitate long posts always) and to learn together in relationship despite our polar differences. Call me on the carpet when I do not speak the truth in love or marginalize you or make you look bad, etc.
I want to learn and teach more than just win an argument.
Are you sure JCWR did not believe in timelessness before? It surprised me that he took the opposite view. He complains about my assertions, as you do, yet that is all he did and caved quickly with less defense than I usually give. I always thought he was more Calvinistic based on his opposition to myself? The conspiracy theory was that he was a plant to make our view look weak and your view persuasive that everyone should adopt without much resistance. Am I paranoid?