How to respond to classical theists who dodge Open Theism arguments

[Lon]

It isn't literal in the sense that you swap out one mind for a different mind but that stupidity isn't even worth the time it takes to say it. To change your mind simply means to alter your way of thinking, your intention, your goal. If you think "A" and now think "not A", you've changed your mind. This is as true of God and anyone else.

I'm likely in the wrong thread anyway. This is supposed to be a 'how' thread, I just couldn't help but weigh in that some 'how's' aren't quite connecting.

Your mind and your brain have next to nothing to do with one another in this context. Your brain is where YOU interfaces with your physical body. Beyond that, the protein between your ears is irrelevant.

(The physical brain can and does effect the function of the mind, but that really is genuinely an entirely different topic.)

Ridiculous.

Your mind isn't your alter ego, it is your ego! Your mind is you!

Which is always my argument as well. You'd probably intimate that I can change 'me' but I'm wondering why this is a point to connect with a classical theist, or argue a point with them. What we are talking about, ultimately, is whether God can be surprised or whether 'to sigh' means He changed His mind (again, it is a nonstarter out of the gate for me, because it is so problematic for conveying anything with clarity). Point: If you are talking amongst yourselves how to address other theists, it might be a problem on the table. It is for me, not just because I believe God isn't caught surprised, knows exactly what He is doing, but also because I believe 'changed one's mind' a modern and problematic colloquialism that just makes theology discussion so much more complicated and problematic, especially if one is trying to make a cogent point.

Thus my entrance into thread, is simply to say so. If no points, well, the thread can move along. I'm just saying it is a stop-conversation for quite a few of us who aren't Open Theists (called classical theists by Open Theism).

Lon, you over think things more than any one else I know of.

It can have good points but I also try to get the heart of a discussion, which isn't always the straightforward. I do believe, "Changed one's mind" is the starting place, because one either has to backtrack, or get lost down the trail a ways.

How is it not completely intuitive that people aren't talking about swapping out one mind for an entirely different mind. It isn't the mind itself that changes, but it's content. I mean, how is it that you cannot remember having ever changed your own mind and thereby know intuitively what it being talked about? How many millions of times have you changed your own mind through the course of your life? Is there nothing you believed in your childhood that you haven't discovered was false? Have you not ever gone to the grocery store intending to buy Tostitos and walked out with Cheetos instead?

This will be the problem because I analyze what one is trying to 'intimate' by the sloppy, if you will. I simply think 'changing one's mind' is a sloppy colloquialism, and further, that most people don't actually know what they really mean when they say it. There are quite a few much better ways to describe what is going on in scripture, like simply taking it at face value "to sigh." The further we get away from exact meaning, the further we start interpreting, where we can get it wrong. We aren't going to agree on everything. We'd have to have the exact same minds for that to happen. When we come to a divergence, we discuss, often debate, over the difference. I believe it good. Even if I walk away fully believing as I always have, I've a rounder/fuller appreciation over the subject matter.

As always, words have a range of meaning. The particular meaning is determined by the context in which it is used. There are many times throughout the bible where it definitely means that God changed His mind.

Okay, for thread's sake (obviously we strongly disagree), what is the instruction (per thread) on how to answer a 'classic' theist? For me, unconvinced for both reasons stated: Attah "to sigh" and 'changed one's mind' not a very good alternative for 'to sigh.' So bringing it back to the thread, how is the classic theist addressed/answered?

No! Absolutely not! These passages are not interpreted after the fact as you are here implying. There is no Open Theist anywhere who decided that the future was open and then set about figuring out how to make certain passages say that God changes His mind. Indeed, it was quite the opposite.

It seems to me, it is a problem wholly created by English translation. "Attah" to sigh, seems very straightforward to me. I'd not even have met an Open Theist ( I don't think) without a problem of English conveyance on point. We cannot get 'changed his mind' from Attah if we were doing a word for word translation instead of a paraphrase/transliteration. I'm saying the problem is 'created' by transliteration against translation.

There are several passages that plainly teach that God has changed His mind.

Can't. There is literally no "Άλλαξε γνώμη" (Greek) nor "שינה את דעתו" (Hebrew 'changed His mind') in the Bible. Rather is 'Attah' over and against the cited 'need' for exact language, in either language to say precisely "God changed His mind." In a word, the 'best' you can do is paraphrase it! Literally.

This is a plain fact and stands as evidence that the future is open. In other words, the fact that God changes His mind is a premise of Open Theism, not a conclusion. In fact, the idea that God changes His mind is not even a necessary condition of Open Theism.

See, you said something, but it wasn't correct thus must be built off of paraphrase. Has to be.

 

[Clete]

@Lon,

Answer this for me before we continue...

What is the purpose of language? What function do words perform?

 

[Lon]

@Lon,

Answer this for me before we continue...

What is the purpose of language? What function do words perform?

Language expresses a thought/idea from one being to another.

 

[Clete]

Language expresses a thought/idea from one being to another.

That's right and words are the symbols we use to name concepts. It's more complicated than just that though because the concept a word names changes depending on how the word it used.

You’re making a mistake about what language is and what words are for and I suspect that you're doing so on purpose.

Language is not a collection of historical artifacts. It is a living, rational system of symbols used to convey thought. Words are the building blocks of that system, and their function is to carry meaning from one mind to another. That’s it. That’s the whole point. Whether we’re talking about English, Hebrew, or DNA, the essential nature of language is communicative. It exists so that rational beings can express, receive, and understand ideas.

A word, then, is not defined by its root sound or its physiological origin, but by how it functions in use. Meaning is not found in the syllables themselves. It is found in what the word represents in a given context, in a given language, to a given audience. That’s how language works.

So when you say that nacham doesn’t mean “change your mind” because that’s a modern colloquialism, and that it really means “to sigh,” you’re not actually engaging with how language operates. You’re confusing the root of a word with the function of that word. You’re reducing the meaning of the word to a physical action rather than considering what idea it’s conveying. As if the entire communicative function of Genesis 6:6 is just a divine sigh. That strips the word of its meaning and replaces it with anatomy. It’s like pointing to a man and saying, “He’s just a bag of organs and calcium.” It misses the point entirely.

A modern example is the English phrase “I feel you.” The literal words refer to physical sensation, but when someone says it today, they mean “I understand you,” or “I empathize.” Imagine someone arguing that it can’t mean empathy because the word feel comes from an old Germanic root meaning to grope. That’s the same kind of error you’re making.

Even if the root of nacham once had connotations of sighing or grieving, that is not the core meaning of the word when it is used to describe God's change of course or reversal of intent. In Genesis 6:6, (and elsewhere) the message is clear: God was grieved, yes, but that grief resulted in a reconsideration, a change of mind, a different course of action. That is what the word is doing. That is the meaning it is carrying. You do not get to override that meaning just because you found an etymological footnote. That’s just not how language works.

Words are servants of meaning. When you elevate the root of a word over its use, you’re no longer interpreting language, you’re dissecting it. You’re not listening to what God is saying, you’re cataloging His syllables. And in doing so, you lose the message while obsessing over the mechanism.

Language is meant to communicate thought. The word nacham, in context, communicates what we would call a change of mind. That’s what the word does. That the concept the word names. Denying that is not a defense of Scripture. It’s a denial of how language works altogether.