One on One: Knight and Lonster open up the settled view.

[Nathon Detroit]

I ask: What is it that made the fruit of His people bad?

Why you ask? Why did Israel disobey? ANSWER: they have a will of their own and they used it to disobey.

Now as for......

Did God expect good grapes? No

I expected it to bring forth good grapes

Hmmmmm.... :think: one of the two of you must be right.

God? Or Lonster?
God? Or Lonster?
God? Or Lonster?
God? Or Lonster?

Another toughy.

 

[Lon]

Huh???

No OVer I know says that God was mistaken about relenting. Where did you get that notion?

John Sanders says that God makes mistakes. I believe I read on here that someone believed that this was the case in Samuel.

Instead, the OV rightly points out that God has the capability to NOT repent in a specific instance.

Lets look at an example....

God repented that He made Saul King....

1Samuel 15:10 Then came the word of the LORD unto Samuel, saying, 11 It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the LORD all night.

Saul begs Samuel and asks that God pardon him.

1Samuel 15:24 And Saul said unto Samuel, I have sinned: for I have transgressed the commandment of the LORD, and thy words: because I feared the people, and obeyed their voice. 25 Now therefore, I pray thee, pardon my sin, and turn again with me, that I may worship the LORD.

But Samuel says... "nope!" God is not going to repent and pardon you.

1Samuel 15:29 And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.

Then God affirms that He repented that He made Saul King.

1Samuel 15:35 And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death: nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul: and the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel. ​

1st Samuel 15 is a direct, objective lesson in the manner in which God can repent. Clearly God can repent, but that doesn't mean He is always going to repent as we see in 1st Samuel 15.

Lonster, do you understand the OV position better now regarding God having the ability to repent/relent but not the obligation to repent/relent?

Yes, but if Sanders says God makes mistakes and I believe someone on here said that this was the case with 1 Samuel, I've gotten two different answers.

 

[Lon]

Why you ask? Why did Israel disobey? ANSWER: they have a will of their own and they used it to disobey.

Now as for.....
Hmmmmm.... :think: one of the two of you must be right.
God? Or Lonster?
God? Or Lonster?
God? Or Lonster?
God? Or Lonster?

Another toughy.

It is only tough because of your understanding. I do not think God was lying. Righteousness and Holiness are indeed His standard. God expects good grapes. What I do not believe, however, is that He was surprised in any way that this didn't happen, but a rhetorical question concerning this problem.

See, this is a case where you do not sympathize so you do not understand. I understand your view and I appreciate your commitment to scripture, but it is not helping us understand one another. There can be no open discussion if we do not make concessions for our understandings. Are SVer's idiots to you?

I'm not accusing you, I'm letting the question fall to me: "God or Lonster X's 4." Let me ask you a question: How would you sympathize that I'd answer this, if I'm not an idiot.

I don't think you want to make that assumption consciously, but there are ways of questioning that imply this. SVer's are not stupid, dishonest, poor theologians, or perfect. We make mistakes. When we are discussing this topic, I hope you can sympathize that we believe that if an attribute is God's alone, it is also best understood by God alone. We do not have to know his transcendent attributes exhaustively to live the way He wants us to live on earth in light of His revelation. There is accusation that our doctrine is infected by outside influence. I do not believe this is the case, because I'd not read philosophy as it connected to theology before I came to these conclusions. I did not just take somebody's word for it either. I am convinced from the scripture that God has transcendent attributes. You don't have to agree with me, but please don't condescend or make no attempt to understand this. I mean if that places me as a heretic in you understanding, I can appreciate that, but as I have been here I haven't gotten that impression, just that we're not very astute. The types of questions here bother me. I was reading in the archives, and I'm pretty sure I am correct in this ascertation. When you ask somebody a condescending question, you are purposefully or unwittingly tearing down a brother's intelligence and reasoning. I don't tend to get too worked up about this, but I have to address this if we are ever going to be able to appreciate one another, our similarity, and our differences. Do you ever wonder why someone being questioned gets so worked up and fleshly? Do you ever wonder why some of the accusations are so raw?
Do you think that you might do anything to cause such a thing? (communal question, not individual) I'm not very basal when it comes to debate. I don't name call. I try very hard not to pose a question in a condescending manner. I try to compliment someone's logic or intelligence even though the person might be from a cult understanding. I don't mind challenging someone if they present a strong opposite view, but I definitely try to model grace, love, concern while I am typing in response.

I've appreciated your kindness. I've appreciated your willingness here to talk about this with me. What I really want to see, if we can get any meaning from one another, is if our respective views can show God's working of grace in us. If He can be glorified even if we never agree on our differences. I don't agree with you on a great many things. Further, I don't think we can hope to agree on a great many things until glory where we might both discover we were both mistaken. I cannot sacrifice God's transcendent Characteristics for His shared, relational ones. I believe they go hand in hand from my perspective. How? Good question, and the kinds of questions we need to be discussing. Again, what say you? What is your perspective?

 

[Lon]

Let me get back to your question, and I am as guilty of not seeing the forest for the trees here in understanding your initial question.

It would have helped I think to ask the specific question up front, because leading questions tend to either cause mind reading scenarios or tangent thoughts because I'm a global thinker.

Isaiah 5:4 When I waited for it to produce edible grapes,
why did it produce sour ones instead?

Isa 5:2 And He fenced it, and gathered out the stones of it, and planted it with choice vines, and built a tower in its midst, and hewed out a wine vat in it; and He looked for it to produce grapes. And it produced wild grapes.

and the version you are using: I expected it to bring forth good grapes


Expectation can mean anticipation, wait, demand, or the logical conclusion.

Last night I had to talk with my daughter about a misbehavior. I told her that I expected her to behave like a Christian young lady, and that we model this behavior for her on purpose.
If I told my daughter I expected my modeling of good behavior to be a fertile ground for her to have the same good behavior, I mean exactly that. But in the circumstance, I was not perplexed by the bad grapes. I am merely stating my expectation. I was not perplexed or surprised that my daughter produced sour grapes. I am just stating that my expectation is higher. This is exactly the same here in this passage.

The view you hold does an injustice to God. If I know my daughter is capable of producing sour grapes, God certainly knows His people better than I know my daughter. I produce an environment of love purposefully in modelling the behavior so that she has a good example to emulate. God worked with Israel in much the same way to make them a people who produced good grapes. He provided an environment that would encourage good behavior. Every good parent does this but just as a parent never would be so naive to believe their children will never fall away from following this example they have set,
God wouldn't be very relational in even OV theology if He was caught by surprise here on how the Israelites responded to His care.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Last night I had to talk with my daughter about a misbehavior. I told her that I expected her to behave like a Christian young lady, and that we model this behavior for her on purpose.
If I told my daughter I expected my modeling of good behavior to be a fertile ground for her to have the same good behavior, I mean exactly that. But in the circumstance, I was not perplexed by the bad grapes. I am merely stating my expectation. I was not perplexed or surprised that my daughter produced sour grapes. I am just stating that my expectation is higher. This is exactly the same here in this passage.

Again... you fail to distinguish between knowledge and exhaustive foreknowledge. Until you can grasp this difference you will never fully understand any of this. (not trying to sound mean but its true)

Keep in mind that in your analogy about you and your daughter that you are not God, therefore you have not seen the future in the way you believe that God has seen the future. You might say the things you have said to your daughter because you have NOT seen the future, instead, you say what you say to your daughter based on your simple knowledge regarding your daughter and you use that knowledge to predict her future actions. (your analogy is a better analogy if used in a Open View theology)

IN CONTRAST:
Your theology (the settled view theology) is very different. Your version of God's knowledge is that He isn't merely predicting the future, but that He has SEEN the future (in every detail). That distinction changes everything.

If God has SEEN the future it would be psychotic for Him to expect, wait on, demand, or anticipate anything OTHER than what He has seen in the future.

Until you come to grips with the distinction between knowledge and exhaustive foreknowledge I am not sure how much more we will be able to discuss this. It's like trying to explain to someone why two plus two equals four and not five.

Have a great weekend, I am traveling so I don't know how much more I will be able to respond until Sunday night or Monday morning.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Yes, but if Sanders says God makes mistakes and I believe someone on here said that this was the case with 1 Samuel, I've gotten two different answers.

Who cares what John Sanders says? How is that relevant?

I have never read any of his work, I am sure its fantastic, but I have never read any of it so lets discuss this between each other and leave third parties at home.

You are completely ignoring the powerful evidence of 1st Samuel 15. Your response is that some author calls God's actions a mistake and you somehow think that rebutts the point of my post and the impact of 1st Samuel 15???? I have to admit this is the type of stuff that frustrates me so much about settled viewers. Where is your regard for the word of God? I realize I am sounding awfully harsh here but what else can I say? The Bible is so incredibly clear and yet people are so intent on making it say other than what it says and confusing its obvious message.

Please respond to the content of 1st Samuel 15.

 

[Lon]

Again... you fail to distinguish between knowledge and exhaustive foreknowledge. Until you can grasp this difference you will never fully understand any of this. (not trying to sound mean but its true)

Brother, I beg to differ. It doesn't matter here at all for both of our ideologies. Again I say your version even maligns your theology.If you are getting this from somebody else, ask them about it. I am not familiar enough with OV but I have to think they would readily admit this here.

Keep in mind that in your analogy about you and your daughter that you are not God, therefore you have not seen the future in the way you believe that God has seen the future. You might say the things you have said to your daughter because you have NOT seen the future, instead, you say what you say to your daughter based on your simple knowledge regarding your daughter and you use that knowledge to predict her future actions. (your analogy is a better analogy if used in a Open View theology)]

You are sounding more and more like a traditionalist all the time. Absolutely I keep this in mind. There is no way to understand God's transcendent character any other way.
Again, ask the brother. This is a very basic understanding of this text.

IN CONTRAST:
Your theology (the settled view theology) is very different. Your version of God's knowledge is that He isn't merely predicting the future, but that He has SEEN the future (in every detail). That distinction changes everything.]

Totally agree with you and this is why I think it is so hard to even dialogue on these ideas. The only thing I would qualify is that I believe exhaustive foreknowledge, but for all the reasons you are bothered, I am too, but it does not cause me to reject it, but say that there are parts of His character that I do not understand.

Interlude: I have had several brothers remind me that OV is not process theology.
If this is correct, it does help us to understand that we would share many perspectives but only disagree for the most part on the extent. Is that how you see our middle road?

If God has SEEN the future it would be psychotic for Him to expect, wait on, demand, or anticipate anything OTHER than what He has seen in the future.]

I think it is more Calvinistic and determinism in that sense, but again, my position isn't to that degree. I say simply I do not know the extensiveness because the questions are the same for me here. The important point for me is that I am not comfortable with us being able to define any constraints in and of ourselves or to go beyond scripture in addressing this. I think it is 'very extensive' from my understanding. We would probably be very similar in ideology if it were not for the constraint on the future.

Until you come to grips with the distinction between knowledge and exhaustive foreknowledge I am not sure how much more we will be able to discuss this. It's like trying to explain to someone why two plus two equals four and not five.

You misunderstand, I am saying that we do not 'come to grips' we perceive and accept. We cannot exhaustively know anything but small glimpses as we are given concerning any characteristic that is God's alone. God explains or we have nothing. The only thing you can come to grips with is whatever He says. The only reason we have any concept whatsoever of even the idea of eternity past, is because God has never had a beginning. We may have gotten to a point in philosophy or science that something never had a beginning, but my understanding of this came from scripture. While I perceive the truth of this I have about two cents in understanding.

The OV does not have to contend with this to the same degree. I'm sure you guys have trouble with some of His transcendence and explanation don't you? I mean don't you guys wrestle with any of the conclusions your theology points to? (Rhetorical) I'm just trying to see if you have similar sympathies on other issues that we can go "boy ain't that the truth."

Have a great weekend, I am traveling so I don't know how much more I will be able to respond until Sunday night or Monday morning.

You too, have a Christ-filled weekend and many many blessings.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Brother, I beg to differ. It doesn't matter here at all for both of our ideologies. Again I say your version even maligns your theology.If you are getting this from somebody else, ask them about it. I am not familiar enough with OV but I have to think they would readily admit this here.

I have no idea of what you just said. :idunno:

Totally agree with you and this is why I think it is so hard to even dialogue on these ideas. The only thing I would qualify is that I believe exhaustive foreknowledge, but for all the reasons you are bothered, I am too, but it does not cause me to reject it, but say that there are parts of His character that I do not understand.

I reject exhaustive foreknowledge because it isn't biblical. All the other reasons are just icing on the cake.

It doesn't seem like we are getting anywhere in this One on One. I read your posts, and I just don't feel like you are saying anything. It doesn't seem to me you want to address the material I have presented. I suppose thats OK, I am not going to lose any sleep over any of this, you seem like a neat guy I am sure you are honestly seeking truth in your own way.

HOWEVER.....

Lets take a new course.

You have stated that you want to understand the Open View better. Well, how about you ask me what interests you and I will give you short (straight-to-the-point) answers in the best way I can.

I am not theologian, instead I am more if a "Joe six-pack" kinda guy. I don't get too excited about long-winded theological gobbledygook. I am not going to avoid any tough questions by using theological parlor tricks or seminary slight-of-tongue. My passion is truth.

So.... what is it that you want to understand better about the Open View?

What about the Open View doesn't seem right to you?

What logical problems do you think the Open View suffers from?

What biblical information do you think contradicts the Open View?

Fire away... I am open to your questions, whatever they may be.

P.S. See ya on Monday!

 

[Lon]

Who cares what John Sanders says? How is that relevant?

I have never read any of his work, I am sure its fantastic, but I have never read any of it so lets discuss this between each other and leave third parties at home.

You are completely ignoring the powerful evidence of 1st Samuel 15. Your response is that some author calls God's actions a mistake and you somehow think that rebutts the point of my post and the impact of 1st Samuel 15???? I have to admit this is the type of stuff that frustrates me so much about settled viewers. Where is your regard for the word of God? I realize I am sounding awfully harsh here but what else can I say? The Bible is so incredibly clear and yet people are so intent on making it say other than what it says and confusing its obvious message.

Please respond to the content of 1st Samuel 15.

I appreciate that. I kind of get frustrated when either view does this and is why I think dialogue is important. I guess I binned all of OV with Sanders from suggested reading (I think Wiki is the culprit here). So all OVer's do not agree with Sanders?

Also, if the situation is that even OVer's are divided, could you guess the ratio here on TOL and possibly give a sampling of how you might differ? I actually value our differences here because they seem to point to similarities in frustration, lack of understanding one another etc. so I'm enjoying our discussion quite a bit. Thanks again for continuing. Sincerely

 

[Lon]

I've been working over 1Samuel 15 and because I seem to not get to the heart of your question, I thought perhaps SV commentary could enlighten the perspective and help flesh-out the SV perspective and help us sort out the thoughts. If you have an OV commentary portion for this, I think it would help us both look very objectively. We can analyze what others are saying, see why they don't address the concerns respectively etc.

John Gill (Baptist): "1Sa 15:11 - It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king,.... Which is not to be understood of any change of mind, counsel, purpose, or decree in God, which is not consistent with his unchangeable nature; but of a change of dispensation, and outward dealings, and is spoken after the manner of men, who, when they repent of anything, change the course of their conduct and behaviour; and so the Lord does without any change of his mind and will, which alters not; and though he changes the outward dispensations of his providence, yet he never changes and alters in the matters and methods of his grace; though he repented he made Saul king, he never repents of his making his saints kings and priests for himself; his outward gifts he sometimes takes away, as an earthly crown and kingdom; but his gifts and calling, which are of special grace, are without repentance."

From the Armenian view: John Wesley: "1Sa 15:11 - Repenteth - Repentance implies grief of heart, and change of counsels, and therefore cannot be in God: but it is ascribed to God when God alters his method of dealing, and treats a person as if be did indeed repent of the kindness he had shewed him. All night - To implore his pardoning mercy for Saul, and for the people. Is turned back - Therefore he did once follow God. Otherwise it would have been impossible, he should turn back from following him. 1Sa 15:29 - Strength of Israel - So he calls God here, to shew the reason why God neither will nor can lie; because lying proceeds from the sense of a man's weakness, who cannot many times accomplish his design without lying and dissimulation; therefore many princes have used it for this very reason. But God needs no such artifices; he can do whatsoever he pleaseth by his absolute power. Repent - That is, nor change his counsel; which also is an effect of weakness and imperfection, either of wisdom or power. So that this word is not here used in the sense it commonly is when applied to God, as in Jer. 11:1-23, and lsewhere."

Kiel & Deilitzsch (Lutheran with Calvin influence): 1Sa 15:10-11 - The word of the Lord came to Samuel: “It repenteth me that I have made Saul king, for he hath turned away from me, and not set up (carried out) my word.” (On the repentance of God, see the remarks on Gen_6:6.) That this does not express any changeableness in the divine nature, but simply the sorrow of the divine love at the rebellion of sinners, is evident enough from 1Sa_15:29.
1Sa_15:29 : “And also the Trust of Israel doth not lie and doth not repent, for He is not a man to repent.” נצח signifies constancy, endurance, then confidence, trust, because a man can trust in what is constant. This meaning is to be retained here, where the word is used as a name for God, and not the meaning gloria, which is taken in 1Ch_29:11 from the Aramaean usage of speech, and would be altogether unsuitable here, where the context suggests the idea of unchangeableness. For a man's repentance or regret arises from his changeableness, from the fluctuations in his desires and actions. This is never the case with God; consequently He is ישׂראל נצח, the unchangeable One, in whom Israel can trust, since He does not lie or deceive, or repent of His purposes. These words are spoken θεοπρεπῶς (theomorphically), whereas in 1Sa_15:11 and other passages, which speak of God as repenting, the words are to be understood ἀνθρωποπαθῶς (anthropomorphically; cf. Num_23:19).

He was 'seen to sigh' (2 Hebrew words "seen" "sigh") which is translated 'repent' ( "and God 'made known His sigh").

 

[Nathon Detroit]

So all OVer's do not agree with Sanders?

Maybe, maybe not, the point is I don't really care what other folks say on the issue as they could be just as wrong as you or I. This thread is a "One on One" featuring ME and YOU, Sanders isn't involved, Calvin isn't involved, Enyart isn't involved.... just me and you!

Also, if the situation is that even OVer's are divided, could you guess the ratio here on TOL and possibly give a sampling of how you might differ? I actually value our differences here because they seem to point to similarities in frustration, lack of understanding one another etc. so I'm enjoying our discussion quite a bit. Thanks again for continuing. Sincerely

I really don't know how, or if, OV'ers are divided nor do I really care.

Not to sound rude, but I just don't care, and frankly it isn't even relevant. :idunno:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I've been working over 1Samuel 15 and because I seem to not get to the heart of your question, I thought perhaps SV commentary could enlighten the perspective and help flesh-out the SV perspective and help us sort out the thoughts. If you have an OV commentary portion for this, I think it would help us both look very objectively. We can analyze what others are saying, see why they don't address the concerns respectively etc.

John Gill (Baptist): "1Sa 15:11 - It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king,.... Which is not to be understood of any change of mind, counsel, purpose, or decree in God, which is not consistent with his unchangeable nature; but of a change of dispensation, and outward dealings, and is spoken after the manner of men, who, when they repent of anything, change the course of their conduct and behaviour; and so the Lord does without any change of his mind and will, which alters not; and though he changes the outward dispensations of his providence, yet he never changes and alters in the matters and methods of his grace; though he repented he made Saul king, he never repents of his making his saints kings and priests for himself; his outward gifts he sometimes takes away, as an earthly crown and kingdom; but his gifts and calling, which are of special grace, are without repentance."

From the Armenian view: John Wesley: "1Sa 15:11 - Repenteth - Repentance implies grief of heart, and change of counsels, and therefore cannot be in God: but it is ascribed to God when God alters his method of dealing, and treats a person as if be did indeed repent of the kindness he had shewed him. All night - To implore his pardoning mercy for Saul, and for the people. Is turned back - Therefore he did once follow God. Otherwise it would have been impossible, he should turn back from following him. 1Sa 15:29 - Strength of Israel - So he calls God here, to shew the reason why God neither will nor can lie; because lying proceeds from the sense of a man's weakness, who cannot many times accomplish his design without lying and dissimulation; therefore many princes have used it for this very reason. But God needs no such artifices; he can do whatsoever he pleaseth by his absolute power. Repent - That is, nor change his counsel; which also is an effect of weakness and imperfection, either of wisdom or power. So that this word is not here used in the sense it commonly is when applied to God, as in Jer. 11:1-23, and lsewhere."

Kiel & Deilitzsch (Lutheran with Calvin influence): 1Sa 15:10-11 - The word of the Lord came to Samuel: “It repenteth me that I have made Saul king, for he hath turned away from me, and not set up (carried out) my word.” (On the repentance of God, see the remarks on Gen_6:6.) That this does not express any changeableness in the divine nature, but simply the sorrow of the divine love at the rebellion of sinners, is evident enough from 1Sa_15:29.
1Sa_15:29 : “And also the Trust of Israel doth not lie and doth not repent, for He is not a man to repent.” נצח signifies constancy, endurance, then confidence, trust, because a man can trust in what is constant. This meaning is to be retained here, where the word is used as a name for God, and not the meaning gloria, which is taken in 1Ch_29:11 from the Aramaean usage of speech, and would be altogether unsuitable here, where the context suggests the idea of unchangeableness. For a man's repentance or regret arises from his changeableness, from the fluctuations in his desires and actions. This is never the case with God; consequently He is ישׂראל נצח, the unchangeable One, in whom Israel can trust, since He does not lie or deceive, or repent of His purposes. These words are spoken θεοπρεπῶς (theomorphically), whereas in 1Sa_15:11 and other passages, which speak of God as repenting, the words are to be understood ἀνθρωποπαθῶς (anthropomorphically; cf. Num_23:19).

He was 'seen to sigh' (2 Hebrew words "seen" "sigh") which is translated 'repent' ( "and God 'made known His sigh").

I WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOU THINK!!!! I really don't care what dead theologians have to say (at least not in the context of this thread).

Commentaries are written by men just like me and you.

These guys (commentators) agree with you that the text means He didn't repent when God says He did. Where does that get us? Those commentators are Calvinists what do you expect them to say?

Lonster, I want to have a discussion with you! Do you really want me to go find commentaries by OV'ers on these passages? Do you really want to have a "copy-paste" death match, battle of the commentators?

Let's have a dialog between each other and we will use the Bible as our reference.
It will be much more fun and rewarding.

 

[Lon]

Regarding 1Sam. 15, I have tended to see about the same as Wesley. God is perfect and if we see Him repent, it isn't that anything in His nature changes, but rather that He is expressing through the time-line or dispensation, a need to make a change. This change is not the product of God's need, but man's. God meets our needs, where we are at, His sameness doesn't change, but His actions change only because 'we' change, and He is meeting 'our' need.

This is my theological background, I don't know how to think of God in terms of passion. When I do a word search concerning 'passion' there doesn't seem to be a connection to God. It is difficult to discern that God is moved by any kind of passion in and of Himself. If He is jealous, is this an ongoing state of His perfection that doesn't rise or fall but is constant and perfect? I have pause to uniquivocally herald SV doctrine. At the same time, the God I understand from Scripture is more likely transcendant than relational for many reasons that I hold, and none of them from outside influence.

As I perceive our positions, there are two parallel truths concerning God between us. One is His relational nature which must be appreciated from changeableness. The other is a position of transcendence and is a view toward God that He is perfect, and being perfect has no need or even room for change.

If God is perfect, any change or ability to relent tends to cast a shadow on how perfect He would be, so the problem is that in order to give honor to His perfection, His transcendence is emphasized to the expense of relational attributes from a SV perspective.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Regarding 1Sam. 15, I have tended to see about the same as Wesley. God is perfect and if we see Him repent, it isn't that anything in His nature changes, but rather that He is expressing through the time-line or dispensation, a need to make a change. This change is not the product of God's need, but man's. God meets our needs, where we are at, His sameness doesn't change, but His actions change only because 'we' change, and He is meeting 'our' need.

I agree, God's nature never changes. God's righteous character does not Change.

Yet if His actions change (as you asserted above - and I would agree that they did change) then the future could not be settled.

Do you disagree with that?

It is difficult to discern that God is moved by any kind of passion in and of Himself.

Why is it difficult to discern? How much more clear could God have been?

We can MOVE God! God is a Living God. He is not a stone idol that cannot move.

Deuteronomy 32:20 And He said: ‘I will hide My face from them, I will see what their end will be, For they are a perverse generation, Children in whom is no faith. 21 They have provoked Me to jealousy by what is not God; They have moved Me to anger by their foolish idols. But I will provoke them to jealousy by those who are not a nation; I will move them to anger by a foolish nation.

Judges 2:18 And when the LORD raised up judges for them, the LORD was with the judge and delivered them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge; for the LORD was moved to pity by their groaning because of those who oppressed them and harassed them.​

The Bible is filled end to end with similar such lessons.

Lonster, based on God's word do you believe we can move God?

As I perceive our positions, there are two parallel truths concerning God between us. One is His relational nature which must be appreciated from changeableness. The other is a position of transcendence and is a view toward God that He is perfect, and being perfect has no need or even room for change.

If God is perfect, any change or ability to relent tends to cast a shadow on how perfect He would be, so the problem is that in order to give honor to His perfection, His transcendence is emphasized to the expense of relational attributes from a SV perspective.

A perfectly carved stone idol cannot change and still be perfect, that may be true.

God is not a stone idol. God is a living God. God is not an inanimate object yet instead, God is a animate being! By definition living things must change, if they don't change, we have a name for that, they are in fact.... dead. :dead:

Greek philosophy states that what is perfect cannot change and remain perfect, but that philosophy is inherently flawed when used in regard to an animated object or a living being.

God's righteous character does not change (no OV'er would disagree), yet God Himself changes in a variety of ways that we can easily demonstrate in the Bible.

Lonster, do you believe that God can change in any way whatsoever? (if you answer "yes" feel free to explain the type of change you are referring to).

 

[Lon]

You bring up the questions that would keep me from being hyper-Calvinist to be certain.


Is God's hand moved by our prayers? Most definitely!

 

[Nathon Detroit]

You bring up the questions that would keep me from being hyper-Calvinist to be certain.

I have avoided talking about Calvinism and Arminianism etc. because ultimately what we are discussing is the settled view and the open view (hyper-Calvinism, Regular Calvinism, Calvinism Lite and Arminianism all present a settled past, present and future.)

Is God's hand moved by our prayers? Most definitely!

How can we move God with our prayers, if all of history has been settled in advance?

 

[Lon]

I have avoided talking about Calvinism and Arminianism etc. because ultimately what we are discussing is the settled view and the open view (hyper-Calvinism, Regular Calvinism, Calvinism Lite and Arminianism all present a settled past, present and future.)

How can we move God with our prayers, if all of history has been settled in advance?

Great question. If God knows all that is going to happen, then He has already predetermined how He would respond also in advance. So based on how we would respond God predetermined the future. In that sense, we are as determining of future events as God in a relational way to the extent that He has allowed. I'm still working over how His foreknowlege would eliminate relation and will.

If He doesn't know everything future, His power and determinism to see us through to the end for the promise.

I can see that either accomplishes the same thing, and we'd only be arguing as to how we eventually 'get there' and what power it was of His that accomplished the task (if I am at all understanding at this point and not overly simplifying).

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I'm still working over how His foreknowlege would eliminate relation and will.

Maybe I can help you with that.

Assuming that God has exhaustive knowledge of all-of-time, ask yourself this.....

At what point did God gain this knowledge? Has He always had it? Did He get it at some point in the past?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Great question. If God knows all that is going to happen, then He has already predetermined how He would respond also in advance. So based on how we would respond God predetermined the future. In that sense, we are as determining of future events as God in a relational way to the extent that He has allowed. I'm still working over how His foreknowlege would eliminate relation and will.

If He doesn't know everything future, His power and determinism to see us through to the end for the promise.

I can see that either accomplishes the same thing, and we'd only be arguing as to how we eventually 'get there' and what power it was of His that accomplished the task (if I am at all understanding at this point and not overly simplifying).

Oh and one more thing....

The short answer to the question goes something like this....

QUESTION:
How can we move God with our prayers, if all of history has been settled in advance?


ANSWER:
We can't.

 

[Lon]

Maybe I can help you with that.

Assuming that God has exhaustive knowledge of all-of-time, ask yourself this.....

At what point did God gain this knowledge? Has He always had it? Did He get it at some point in the past?

Yep, I've seen some pretty good arguments against foreknowledge actually. At this point, I hold to the doctrine of foreknowledge because I haven't worked out a term that works as yet: Maybe 'extensive foreknowledge.'

Part of my position comes from observation like the visions of future events. God reveals these visions so completely that I have to believe that He is able to know them completely.

Perhaps His power is able to accomplish this to such a degree, that nothing can happen to change a scratch even from the vision, but the details are certain. I can buy into that idea for the most part, as an alternative view of my own. When Lamerson said the reformed theology formed a package, where all or none is the case, he wasn't mistaken. Reformed theology on God's transcendent qualities stand or fall as they stand or are torn down and in effect, God is reduced to a less potent position. From our conversation, I believe OV builds this back up, but it is a difficult proposition to apprehend.