This is the point I was attempting to get at before. At one point you restrict "change" in God as something that is a change in His character, and at another time you define a "change" in God as any kind of change. This is where we need to define our terms better. If you feel that "change of mind" in God is part of that character definition, I can try to abide by it, but not until I finish this section of my post (or maybe the whole post). But if God at one time was going to destroy a nation (really, truly; it was in His plans to do so), and then at a later time He had repented/relented/sighed (it was NOT in His plans to do so--for whatever reason), then something about God has changed. You have rejected that God changed His mind, and maybe I cling to it too much, but euphemistically, it is an accurate description, even if the change was centered only on the smaller details, and not on the over-arching purpose. (Your carrot cake illustration below illustrates this.)
If we look at the prediction of Hezekiah's death as a reality in God's mind--that he would die of his illness--and then that reality was replaced with a new reality in God's mind--that he would NOT die of his illness, this is NOT a change in God's character. Can we agree with that? If you don't agree, tell me why.
If it is NOT a change in God's character, but it is still a different outcome that God has determined is true (either by knowing what will happen in the future or by causing it to happen), is God's mind now thinking of a different outcome?
If you say "No" to that question, and you believe there is NOT a different outcome in God's mind, then that MUST mean that it is the only outcome God has considered, right? And then, He told Hezekiah a different outcome was coming, something that is different from what He knows is the actual outcome.
The problem with any time-constrained consideration (us and our perspective) is that it isn't God's. We know, at least from revelation if not total grasp, that God does not think like us, nor are His ways our ways. It, for me, necessarily means I can only think and/or reason through so much of this and more importantly, that such becomes a faith and trust issue, and an important one. Job was wrestling over this very thing, and when God finally confronts Him, it is over Job's presumptuous 'as good/smart as God' problem. God confronted him and Job said "let me shut up!" What I 'can' grasp, is God is that God doesn't change Himself, He changes us. There is no point, for me, in even entertaining God 'changing His mind.' It just does me no good, and as I said, I believe it undermines confidence, faith, and trust in Him. God is perfect and holy. Those two characteristics/traits are essential to faith, hope, trust, and confidence. A God who "changes His mind" challenges these biblical givens AND digs at the foundations of faith in God. These ideas, then, for me, are much more Greek than mine or any traditional theist's because the gods were very human to the Greeks. It is ALWAYS odd for me to see an Open Theist accuse traditional theism of Greek influence when we believe the opposite about God. They and the Romans believed the gods weren't very godly after-all, but all too human, including being untrustworthy, always given whims and mind changes. In Hezekiah's instance, God's 'mind' didn't change, Hezekiah changed. How mad is God over sin and Hell? Do you want Him, honestly, more or less angry about what is killing us and doing the same to others? Do you honestly want a God who 'can' love you more, if He is ALREADY the definition of Love? How can any of these (and imho more Greek than traditional theology), be more desirable? How can the implication of imperfection ever bring an Open Theist comfort? It seems to me (not a slam, but what I get from impression), that the Open Theist would almost prefer the Greek and Roman gods who 'seem more relational.' What comfort could I have from a 'more' relational God if His perfection is compromised? I don't want a God 'just like me." I want and NEED a God in whose perfect, unchanging, Holy nature I can reach 1 John 3:2
What are you saying is the open of open theism? Whim? Why do you say that?
I've given some of the answer above. I don't really believe most Open Theists want a relational God at the expense of His nature and character (they don't want a 'more human' God). I think most are just trying to understand stories they read in scripture and try to give people hope in a God who truly cares, as best as they can grasp such, BUT I don't think eschewing traditional/classical theology is the right tactic, nor that blaming their thoughts of God on Greeks is the best grasp of theology proper. To understand God as relational, we do not need God to be human. The Lord Jesus Christ has already done all in relating to us, as our empathetic high priest BUT such a work of God, also contrasts the unchanging stable righteousness and holiness of God. IOW, scripture itself explains immutability in God. The BETTER tack (like you are doing here) is not to dismiss the omnis or use a Greek distraction ploy, it is to dive in and understand better what is on the table and WHY it is believed to be entirely scriptural (some Open Theist leaders, imho are remise and a few others lazy, I honestly believe they lazily will not, or cannot have grasped traditional explanation of the scriptures).
I think I understand your point here. Here's where I think it leads. If God always knows everything about everyone, even before they exist, in order to never have to change an outcome, then there has to be a basis for His knowledge. I can think of only two:
1. He can "see" the future and therefore knows exactly what everyone will think and do.
2. He creates ("ordains") the future, and therefore knows exactly what He will do.
Some of this goes with above for me: "Lon, you are fairly intelligent, have a couple of degrees behind your name, and did well in school, but you don't know everything and are cocky to try to out-think God. I don't know if these two are the only options.
Think with me a moment: Genesis 3:1-6
Regardless if one is Open Theist or Classic, where was God? Did He WANT sin in His creation??? I'm pretty bold in these questions, as bold perhaps as Job questioning God. I'm not trying to own them as accusation against God. I'm not so bold. I'm trying to understand AND at the end of the day, Open Theist or Calvinist, it doesn't matter, I'm not this arrogant. Neither of your logical propositions fit without making God look like "He wants sin in the Garden." Look at your two logical conclusions: Both look bad. It looks bad for Calvinism, but it looks just as bad for Open Theism: God was there! He knew! He could have stopped it!
The Open Theist and Arminian start 'freewill....' Freewill schmeewill, if my kid runs into the street after I said "no," you can bet I'm going to get him and stop him from death. The question cannot (for me) just be "freewill!" For me the answer has to be :idunno:
lest I be wise in my own eyes. That's not to say I'm not arrogant, just that I'm not brilliant for it. I'm well aware of my need for the Godly attribute of humility and seeing others as better than myself.
Since we have two possible sources of this information, we have to consider how both affect the Hezekiah story.
#1 makes God a liar to Hezekiah, because He told Hezekiah something He KNEW was false.
#2 makes God a liar to Hezekiah, because He told Hezekiah something He KNEW was false.
Imho? Arrogance. You are asserting this by MAKING the rules. Job got into trouble for 'thinking he was right.' I have fallen into the same trap. As I said, I love the book of Job because of this. What is the real answer? 1) I suspect God doesn't lie (and suspect you don't believe He does either, even when thinking of Calvinists) and 2) that I CAN think of a reasonable answer, but it doesn't make it so, just my attempt: If I were God, and Hezekiah was going to die, and I knew that AND I knew that if I said something, such would all change, then 'how' I convey the message doesn't mean I'm lying. Again, analyze my exact words to my wife: "that pot is going to boil over." Because you understand, you didn't accuse me of lying to my wife. I submit that 'not understanding' often times, from the Open Theist, causes the same kinds of accusation.
Time-sensitivity doesn't work as an out, because we aren't talking about God's knowledge being time-sensitive.
No, but interaction 'in' time changes those things. Look with me: Did God REALLY change His mind? Why did He tell Hezekiah in the first place? God didn't tell my Grandmother "your time is up." He rarely does. So why? Why DID God tell Hezekiah He was going to die? Imho, just like I would tell my wife 'the pot is going to boil over.' Technically, analytically, wouldn't it have been better for me to say "if you don't get to that pot, it will boil over"? Why didn't I? For me, easy answer "Pot, boil-over" is short enough for her to do something about it. It is CLEAR communication and no lie. Let me ask you this: SUPPOSE you and Open Theists are wrong for a moment: Is it a good or sensible thing to question the veracity and truthfulness of God regarding my Calvinist understanding? IOW, when you were a Calvinist, were you audacious enough to think God lied??? For me: Things aren't always how they look, and I'll always try to reserve judgment. The truthful gracious and trusting answer is: I don't exactly know, but I'm pretty sure God did not lie. I don't really know how omniscience works because I'm not omniscient and have no way, other than revelation from God, to grasp how it plays out.
Essentially you are saying that based on the current trajectory, the pot is going to boil over. I agree with this line of thinking for humans, and the associated message. God does not have to think like this, since He supposedly knows that the trajectory is going to change. But, I'll play along for a minute to see how the story would unfold.
If I were to read your story and try to determine from it whether YOU are omniscient about future events, what conclusion would I reach? **That you are NOT omniscient about future events.**
What is a different way to deliver the message (the one that says to your wife that she needs to turn down the stove) that is more in keeping with your omniscience? How about, "Please turn down the stove before it boils over." Because you know your wife, and she trusts you, it would be sufficient. "But what if it's NOT sufficient?" you ask. If your wife doesn't trust you, then you might have to tell her something that's not true (that the pot is going to boil over), in order to get her to do something she doesn't want to do. But if that's what happened to Hezekiah, and God told him something that was NOT the truth, because He didn't have the power to accomplish His goals other ways. What does that say for Hezekiah?
See, to me, the ball is left in Hezekiah's and my wife's court. I didn't lie, and neither did God: If they did nothing, the even WOULD indeed happen. The REASON we tell Hezekiah he is going to die or my wife that the pot is going to boil over, is so THEY can react to it. It is odd, when Hezekiah and my wife are the key-players, that the Open Theist would bring God changing His mind into the picture in the first place to me. He is the mover of all things Colossians 1:17, but the focus of the story is not God's life-span nor my pot. Both belong specifically, to those being spoken to and it is their stewardship task being drawn upon.
Remember, both of these statements are dealing with a person who knows the future perfectly, and therefore knows if their attempts were successful. So you can't use the time-sensitive statements when talking about the future when dealing with a person who knows the future. You can't say God didn't really know which would happen.
I've never been timeless in my life so have no idea how such happens other than as God explains anything to me. I'm convinced there are things finite people like you and I cannot grasp. We are not infinite. We are not God. We are not, as intelligent as we are, that smart. We can interact with God in 'our' finiteness. To reattribute such limited qualities to God? :nono: We just cannot do it without dethroning the God of the universe to some degree. Job 38:3
But there is another problem with your interaction with a future you already know about--you are destined as much as she is, despite the difference in future knowledge. The difference between our #1 scenario and the #2 scenario above is that YOU (in your example) are the only one it makes a difference for. And here's the difference it makes:
#1 You know it is going to happen and know that your warning will work, but you are still required to give the warning--by some other power that is greater than you (a fixed future). Nor can you decide to change the scenario to allow the pot to boil over, if there is some reason to do so.
#2 You know it is going to happen and know that your warning will work, but you are still required to give the warning--because from before the beginning of time you decided that's what would happen. You are playing a role in your own movie (or perhaps book, which I'll talk about below), and are required to do so, in order for everything to work out like you planned.
Yet, like Genesis 3:1-6, we cannot accuse God, neither of us: Open Theist OR Calvinist. Imho, there is no disputation of God's Omniscience. The thread to me, is more about everyone's hesitancy by degrees, to accept it. Again Job 38:3 John 16:30; 21:17
Let me try this another way. Let's say that God has told a family they were going to have a baby. But then, the wife dies, and the man remarries, and then God tells him that he's not going to have a baby. Would God be guilty of false prophecy? At the time of the joyous news, the first wife was healthy, but then she got sick and died. After she died, the "time-sensitivity" of the prophecy expired, and it was no longer true. Would you not cry foul in this case? Essentially it sets up God for never having to fulfill ANY prophecies. All could be considered to have time-sensitive components.
I'm not sure of any equal footing to the example/story. Are you just trying to establish that if God lied, 'He lied'? :idunno:
I don't get this example. I guess you're saying that a perfect birthday cake is not perfect for a wedding, and I agree. In the same way a perfect reaction to a sinful deed can be more than one thing--justice or mercy. God can choose which one He wants to do. But a perfect reaction to a repentant sinner may be more restricted.
It is an important part of consideration for perfection. "We" are the imperfect ones. Perfection requires, by definition, that nothing change. The story of man, sin, and God is that man lost perfection. We can, as Job did, misapprehend perfection (like taking a birthday cake to a wedding), but perfection itself, cannot change. It'd be like suggesting God needs to make that perfect birthday cake rewritten for a wedding simply because 'we' imperfect beings want it for a wedding. :nono: That's 'our' imperfect expectation of what perfection already is.
I'll let you fight with @
Rosenritter about the Greeks.
:up: It is important for the thread.
Then you admit God gained in His information???? Well, we're making some great progress!
Progress? By making the God of the universe more like an imperfect man? Is THAT the goal of Open Theism??? :noway:
For discussion, a change of information doesn't mean a lack of knowledge about it. It means 'we' are seeing and experiencing things 'we' didn't know about. It means God is interacting with an imperfect people to bring about perfection. Every, every, every scripture to man is to conform to God's perfect image in self-denial. Whatever you are trying to protect, imho, in an Open Theist mindset, is unworthy of such protection or esteem: Luke 9:23 John 3:30
But God, supposedly, doesn't need to react to a change of conditions by changing the result, since He knew those would be the conditions. Remember this is about what is going to happen in the future.
However, the whole story of God's relationship to us isn't God's need to change, it is ours, caught in sin, with DESPERATE need to rise to the occasion which we, in ourselves cannot do. It IS the redemption story: A God who reaches us to bring us up, not Himself down. Such is NO comfort at all. His only need (if such can be said) is related in John 3:16 A need to redeem, to seek and save that which was lost.
What was your "mindset"? to make a cake, or to make a carrot cake? In one sense, the over-all purpose of your act, you want to do something nice for the person. When you find out the new (to you) information about the allergy, you change your lower-level "purpose" of making a carrot cake to making an upside-down cake. But your over-all purpose hasn't changed. Both are changes, and I can argue that both are changes of mind, but only the latter (no longer wanting to do a good thing for a friend) is a change of mindset, perhaps.
My example is limited. It show my lack of omniscience but allows one to at least concede such in God, thus I gave it as inadequate as it was.
The reason this doesn't fit the settled future God is that He already KNEW about Hezekiah's allergy, and chose to make the carrot cake anyway--until Hezekiah told him about the allergy verbally. Then God decided to make the upside-down cake, AS IF the information was new.
Again, cake illustration, pushed this far lacks. It was only to get a partial understanding and grasp of the object to analyze: A change of mind vs a change of accommodation. If I made a carrot cake, certainly it is because 1) of care for the person and 2) a little of my 'forethought' regarding the need for change/accommodation. My point is that even without omniscience, for me, it isn't a change of mind. Such indicates a change of mind in my good desire and love to serve a friend. Change of mind overshadows my good intent. You'd not say "Oh Lon! You changed your mind!" with any kind of ribbing or worse; character maligning. You'd likely, being an equally good friend, not say to another "Lon changed his mind" BUT "Lon made me a cake AND another one!" A mention of my 'mind changing' would malign me and you, imho. It is a poor summation of what just happened, in love and a bit of sacrifice. It is part of the reason I don't prefer the term and especially in regard to God. "Change of mind" carries, always' negative connotations.
You wouldn't cancel for ANY reason? Well, that surprises me. (And no, I live in Colorado. Disneyland is a convenient reference, and it seems like people are always going there or to Orlando from CO for vacation.)
It would take an awful lot to change those kinds of plans. Some packages have no reimbursement insurance etc. It costs quite a bit.
I'll retract my rather insensitive question. Sorry.
No real harm, I just wanted it rephrased is all
Thanks for being sensitive and concerned. I appreciate you.
I would think that all theologies are a work in progress. And your concern for open theists applies to all others, too, don't you think?
Yes, BUT some of them have stood the tests of time (inspection, debate) longer than others.
I'm not sure I see any progression in Calvinism. I get the feeling that they locked down on a particular rendition and aren't willing to consider the positives of others that are presented to them. This isn't true of all Calvinists, of course, but of "Calvinism" as an entity.
Likely true (same with Catholicism). For me? I'm open to the discussion. The older a denomination gets, the more 'leaving that denomination' is the only answer. One good thing about Open Theism is that the walls aren't so jelled as to push another divergent Open Theist out.
I'm not too hung up on labels, personally though. There are a few different groups of Calvinists so perhaps you'll simply see which group I more closely resemble in such a conversation. A lot of Open Theists and MAD have told me I'm not one :e4e:
