The Logical Impossibility of Open View Dispensationalism *merged*

[joelkaki]

I am now going to offer proof that Dispensationalism and Open Theism cannot logically be held together. Here is Right Idea's explanation of both positions:
Open-View -- a.k.a. an Open Theist. Can be dispensational or covenental, although most OVers are dispy. The Open View holds that God is omniscient, but because we have free will (and by God's choice), the future doesn't exist to be known, and therefore God only knows some of the future, not all of it. God knows that part of the future that He has definitely predetermined (as He did with the crucifixion and still foreknows regarding the future Tribulation). But the vast majority of the future, while extremely predictable for God, cannot be known for certain. A common false accusation against the Open View is that it limits God's omniscience, but this is absolutely untrue. God cannot know things that aren't true or don't exist. For example, God cannot know that there is a man named Bob Whippersnapper in the town of New York, Colorado. Because there is no such man and no such town. Does this limit His omniscience? Of course not; that would be silly. Likewise, God cannot know with 100% certainty (except for the aforementioned exceptions) the future, which doesn't exist to be known.

Dispensationalist -- A Christian is either Covenental or Dispensational. There is no third option. Covenental theologians believe the Body of Christ today receives all of the promises God made to Israel, and is "spiritual Israel." They believe either that We have been adopted spiritually into Israel, or we have totally and permanently replaced Israel, and God will never work with the Jews again. We dispensationalists, on the other hand, believe the Body of Christ is different from historical, spiritual, corporate Israel, that we don't receive all the promises and gifts that came as a part of Israel's covenant with God, etc. Most dispensationalists are Acts 2 Dispies, who believe there was no difference between Paul's gospel and Jesus's (and the Twelve's gospel, and that the Body of Christ began at Pentacost.

So let me summarize in backwards order:

Dispensationalism:
-There is a strong dichotomy between Israel and the Body of Christ.
-The body of Christ is not spiritual Israel.
-Thus Israel means physical Israel, not the body of Christ.

Open Theism:
-God does not know with certainty the future actions of his creatures.
-His creatures have libertarian free will to either accept or reject his offer of the gospel (as well as libertarian free will in every area of life).

OK, here is why these two cannot be logically held at the same time:

Romans 11:25,26--"For I do not desire, brethre, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that hardening in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved..."

So, dispensationally, Israel here cannot refer to the body of Christ, but must refer to national, physical, ethnic Israel. Since salvation, according to Open Theism, is accomplished when a libertarian free creature believes on the gospel, and all Israel will be saved, then each member of national Israel (or at least the mass nation depending on viewpoint) must, by their own libertarian free will, choose to accept the gospel and be saved. The problem is that God cannot know the future. God cannot know who will be saved. God cannot know the future actions of his libertarian free creatures with certainty. The Holy Spirit could not have inspired Paul to write these words if Open Theism is correct, for the Holy Spirit did not know which creatures would accept the gospel! Dispensationalism and Open Theism cannot logically both be held at the same time. Either Dispensationalism must be given up, Open Theism must be given up, or both Dispensationalism and Open Theism must be given up. You cannot hold to both. It is illogical.


Joel

[bar Jonah]

02-26-2003 @ 10:51 AM
Theolog:

As I thought “dispensation” is not in the Bible. Just when and how did “dispensational theology” start?

I always thought that the Bible taught only one gospel are you saying that there are more than one gospel?
Just as I thought. You let your presuppositions rule the way you think, so that you make yourself close-minded, actually going out of your way to avoid facts.

Theolog, did you go find perhaps the one translation of the Bible that doesn't use the word "dispensation?" (The NASB.)

I looked in six translations, including the three listed below, and found "dispensation" in all six.



DARBY

Colossians 1:25
of which *I* became minister, according to the dispensation of God which [is] given me towards you to complete the word of God,

1 Timothy 1:4
nor to turn their minds to fables and interminable genealogies, which bring questionings rather than [further] God's dispensation, which [is] in faith.



KJV

1 Corinthians 9:17
For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.

Colossians 1:25
Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;



NKJV

Ephesians 1:10
that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth -- in Him.

Ephesians 3:2-9
if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you, how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel, of which I became a minister according to the gift of the grace of God given to me by the effective working of His power.

To me, who am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to make all see what is the dispensation of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ;


The word "dispensation" isn't in the Bible? I beg to differ, my friend. Next?

[bar Jonah]

Joel, you have one fatal flaw in your logic. Open Theism recognizes that not all prophecies from God come true, and that some prophecies in the Bible never came true. (Such as the destruction of Ninevah and other examples.) Just as we can see in Jeremiah 18, all prophecies from God (most especially concerning nations) are inherently conditional upon the free will actions of those nations and the individuals therein. Therefore, the prophecy you cited regarding Israel is also conditional. It may very well not come to pass. God believes it will. But that's not a 100% guarantee, any more than it was set in stone that Ninevah would be surely destroyed 40 days after the prophecy given by Jonah.

[Jaltus]

Can't wait to see how geebob or Yx respond to this.

[joelkaki]

Joel, you have one fatal flaw in your logic. Open Theism recognizes that not all prophecies from God come true, and that some prophecies in the Bible never came true. (Such as the destruction of Ninevah and other examples.) Just as we can see in Jeremiah 18, all prophecies from God (most especially concerning nations) are inherently conditional upon the free will actions of those nations and the individuals therein. Therefore, the prophecy you cited regarding Israel is also conditional. It may very well not come to pass. God believes it will. But that's not a 100% guarantee, any more than it was set in stone that Ninevah would be surely destroyed 40 days after the prophecy given by Jonah.


The problem with this is that you claim that God makes mistakes. God does not make mistakes. He is perfect. As to Jonah, I think all agree that in Jonah's prophecy of destruction, there was an implied condition that if they repented, God would spare them. The threat was real, but according to God's plan, they repented, and he spared them. And besides, that is not the same thing.

By this reasoning, God can become a false prophet to be judged according to the laws of the OT (or at least Paul could of for writing that in Romans--but it was inspired by God). Romans 11:26 does not say, "I believe or think all Israel will be saved.'' It says explicitly, "ALL ISRAEL WILL BE SAVED."

Not only does this make God a false prophet, it means Scripture is not inerrant. The Scriptures are fallible, which means we really can't trust them at all. These are the horrible consequences of open theism.

If God only thinks this is what will happen, and is not completely sure, and it could turn out that no Israel is saved, then Paul sure might have gone to a whole lot of wasted effort in writing Romans 11 (not to mention chapters 9 and 10).



Joel

[Salus]

*pulls up a chair, cracks open a Mt. Dew, and pops up some pocorn*

[bar Jonah]

02-26-2003 @ 03:40 PM
joelkaki:

The problem with this is that you claim that God makes mistakes. God does not make mistakes. He is perfect. As to Jonah, I think all agree that in Jonah's prophecy of destruction, there was an implied condition that if they repented, God would spare them. The threat was real, but according to God's plan, they repented, and he spared them. And besides, that is not the same thing.

By this reasoning, God can become a false prophet to be judged according to the laws of the OT (or at least Paul could of for writing that in Romans--but it was inspired by God). Romans 11:26 does not say, "I believe or think all Israel will be saved.'' It says explicitly, "ALL ISRAEL WILL BE SAVED."

Not only does this make God a false prophet, it means Scripture is not inerrant. The Scriptures are fallible, which means we really can't trust them at all. These are the horrible consequences of open theism.

If God only thinks this is what will happen, and is not completely sure, and it could turn out that no Israel is saved, then Paul sure might have gone to a whole lot of wasted effort in writing Romans 11 (not to mention chapters 9 and 10).

Joel
This is the second-most common straw man argument used against Open Theism -- the accusation that we believe God makes mistakes. (Number 1 is, of course, that we reject God's omniscience.)

Absolutely, positively, without any question, GOD DOESN'T MAKE MISTAKES. I don't expect to persuade you to the Partially Open View, Joel, so don't feel that I'm trying to accomplish that. But please understand... we categorically reject that God makes mistakes, that God is anything less than perfect.

What we believe is that Man is imperfect, Man makes mistakes, and God responds to those decisions and errors.

Within the Partially Open View:

1. God has a plan
2. Man fails that plan
3. God adapts the plan

And God continues to adapt the plan, always demonstrating sovereignty over Man until His plan comes to fruition. God has many sub-plans within His grand scheme. Many of these sub-plans come to pass, and a few do not. Right before the Flood, God regreted making Man at all. If that's the case and if God exists outside of Time, why didn't God just unmake history, undo what He did? Erase it? No, God adapted the plan, killed everyone in the world except these eight people.

Your view says that God always knew Israel would fail, and so God set Israel up to fail, having always intended to go to the Gentiles as He has done. Such a belief is -- to an Open Theist -- unconscionable on God's part. Which view is the more offensive? I'll let you be the judge.

But please don't make the false accusation that we believe God makes mistakes. God NEVER makes mistakes. When He changes His mind, relents of His decision, repents of what He has done .... it's not because He screwed up. It's because we screwed up.

[joelkaki]

OK, I now understand better what you are saying. But in saying what you say, you contradict Eph 1:11. God works all things according to the counsel of his will. All things includes those things that seem to be against his plan. Those are worked BY HIM according to His plan. Open Theism would say that God works the results of all things according to his plan, i.e., he adapts his plans according to those things, working them into his plan, but that is clearly not what this verse says. God works all things according to his plan, not just the results worked into his plan, but the things themselves worked according to his plan.

But see, even though you claim that God does not make mistakes, but rather we do, and he has to respond to what we do, He still must have made a mistake in that system. He predicted something would happen, but He was mistaken. It didn't happen. Whether or not man is the one that didn't go according to that prediction is irrelevant. God's prediction did not come true, and thus He made a mistake.

Joel

[joelkaki]

According to Open Theism:

*God is waiting to see if they are able to respond accurately. Too bad he doesn't know yet.*


Joel

[yxboom]

Joel so if I tell you keep driving on the I-5 and you will go to Oregon and instead you take the I-80 to Nevada please tell me how that makes me mistaken? According to your words I went wrong somewhere....please care to share.

[bar Jonah]

02-26-2003 @ 04:02 PM
joelkaki:

OK, I now understand better what you are saying. But in saying what you say, you contradict Eph 1:11. God works all things according to the counsel of his will. All things includes those things that seem to be against his plan. Those are worked BY HIM according to His plan. Open Theism would say that God works the results of all things according to his plan, i.e., he adapts his plans according to those things, working them into his plan, but that is clearly not what this verse says. God works all things according to his plan, not just the results worked into his plan, but the things themselves worked according to his plan.

But see, even though you claim that God does not make mistakes, but rather we do, and he has to respond to what we do, He still must have made a mistake in that system. He predicted something would happen, but He was mistaken. It didn't happen. Whether or not man is the one that didn't go according to that prediction is irrelevant. God's prediction did not come true, and thus He made a mistake.

Joel
All Ephesians 1:11 means is that He incorporates all of our actions and decisions -- both righteous and unrighteous -- into His plan.

He works all things (including our decisions) according to His will. Where's the problem?

If you claim God doesn't respond to the actions and decisions of men and nations, how do you explain Jeremiah 18? God even says this in the first person through Jeremiah!

Your use of the word "mistaken" is an equivocation. You're trying to equate that word to being at fault, and that is a false leap. Being mistaken doesn't automatically put the fault on the mistaken individual. God told David that Saul was coming to Keilah, and that the men of Keilah would hand him (David) over to Saul. But neither of those events happened. And the story of Ninevah's conspicuous non-destruction on the 40th day stands. Why else would Paul warn us that the Gentiles may someday be (corporately) cut off just as Israel was?

There's no getting around Jeremiah 18. God responds to us; there can be no doubt.

[joelkaki]

Joel so if I tell you keep driving on the I-5 and you will go to Oregon and instead you take the I-80 to Nevada please tell me how that makes me mistaken? According to your words I went wrong somewhere....please care to share.

That is not at all the same thing. Notice Romans 11:26 does not say anything about God giving a specific command to us. It is God saying what would happen in the future, which, should it not occur, he was mistaken. The scenario is more like this: (Again, not an exact fit,but closer than yours)

I tell you that if you keep driving on I-20 East, you will reach Augusta, Georgia. Before reaching Augusta, the I-20 ceases to exist, and two other roads go opposite directions, neither one going to Augusta.

That is closer to it. God tells us in Romans 11:26 that something is going to happen, and yet you say it might not. Were we to adopt this sort of thinking, "It may very well not come to pass. God believes it will. But that's not a 100% guarantee" then we really can't trust any prediction of the Bible. We might as well forget God's promises and keep just trying to make our own way through life minding our own business, cause God isn't even 100% sure that what He said is going to happen is going to happen.

Joel

[joelkaki]

Yes, it is the exact same post. I originally posted it over there, because there was a declaration that someone was a "Acts 9, 12 out, OV, dispy" and I was responding to that logical inconsistency. But then I thought this should have its own thread. I need more answers to this than what Right Idea has said.
Everything can be moved over here, though.
Joel

[Hitch]

02-26-2003 @ 11:02 PM
joelkaki:

OK, I now understand better what you are saying. But in saying what you say, you contradict Eph 1:11. God works all things according to the counsel of his will. All things includes those things that seem to be against his plan. Those are worked BY HIM according to His plan. Open Theism would say that God works the results of all things according to his plan, i.e., he adapts his plans according to those things, working them into his plan, but that is clearly not what this verse says. God works all things according to his plan, not just the results worked into his plan, but the things themselves worked according to his plan.

But see, even though you claim that God does not make mistakes, but rather we do, and he has to respond to what we do, He still must have made a mistake in that system. He predicted something would happen, but He was mistaken. It didn't happen. Whether or not man is the one that didn't go according to that prediction is irrelevant. God's prediction did not come true, and thus He made a mistake.

Joel PERF

H

[yxboom]

The threads have been merged and the relevant posts have been moved to this thread now.

[joelkaki]

All Ephesians 1:11 means is that He incorporates all of our actions and decisions -- both righteous and unrighteous -- into His plan.

That is not what the verse says. It says that He WORKS them according to his plan. To work is an action. He does not incorporate our actions and decisions into His plan. We act and we decide because he works them according to his plan. You cannot switch words to suit your purpose. It says "According to", not "into." Everything that happens happens because he worked it according to his plan. He does not work them into his plan. You make it sound as if some things happen outside of God's plan, and he figures out some way to respond to use it for his plan. That is a mangling of this verse. The things that happen, happen (are worked) because of His will.


He works all things (including our decisions) according to His will. Where's the problem?

The problem is explained above.


If you claim God doesn't respond to the actions and decisions of men and nations, how do you explain Jeremiah 18? God even says this in the first person through Jeremiah!

I never said God does not respond to the actions and decisions of men; but those actions and decisions were part of his plan in the first place.


Your use of the word "mistaken" is an equivocation. You're trying to equate that word to being at fault, and that is a false leap. Being mistaken doesn't automatically put the fault on the mistaken individual. God told David that Saul was coming to Keilah, and that the men of Keilah would hand him (David) over to Saul. But neither of those events happened. And the story of Ninevah's conspicuous non-destruction on the 40th day stands. Why else would Paul warn us that the Gentiles may someday be (corporately) cut off just as Israel was?

Again, those situations are different. There is an implied condition which I believe we agree on.


There's no getting around Jeremiah 18. God responds to us; there can be no doubt.

Sure, God responds; but that does not mean that our actions were not part of his predetermined plan.

Joel

[Act9_12Out]

Joel,

I see the straw man you're trying to set up... You say,So, dispensationally, Israel here cannot refer to the body of Christ, but must refer to national, physical, ethnic Israel. Wrong! Israel refers to any person who believed before the body of Christ started in Acts 9. There were definitely Gentlies who became proselytes and entered into the church that is believing Israel (Acts 2:5,10; Acts 8:26-40). The point of this passage is, Paul refers to Israel as the set aside group of believers. Let's read it with this distinction in mind.The New King James Version

Romans 11
11:25
For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.

*Paul is stating that believing Israel has been set aside positionally until "the fulness of the Gentiles has come in."

11:26
And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "The Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;

*All of believing Israel will definitely be saved. Why? Because they are believing Israel.

11:27
For this is My covenant with them, When I take away their sins."
11:28
Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers.

*Concerning the gospel, believing Israel are considered enemies for the sake of the body of Christ? Why? Because they have the circumcision gospel and Paul's gospel is the gospel of the uncircumcision. Paul goes to great lengths to admonish body of Christ believers to follow no other gospel than the gospel he taught them (Gal 1:6-10)

*Concerning the election, they are beloved? Why? Because God chose believing Israel, specifically the tribe of Judah to bring Messiah through. He elected them for service, and they are beloved.

11:29
For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
11:30
For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience,

*The body of Christ has now obtained mercy through Israel's disobedience and rejection of her Messiah.

11:31
even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy.

*Praise God, their setting aside is only temporary! God will again deal with believing Israel, and include believers into her church!

11:32
For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.

*God has set aside believing Israel, committed all believing Israel to obedience so that he might have mercy on all believing Israel.You continue,Since salvation, according to Open Theism, is accomplished when a libertarian free creature believes on the gospel, and all Israel will be saved, then each member of national Israel (or at least the mass nation depending on viewpoint) must, by their own libertarian free will, choose to accept the gospel and be saved. The problem is that God cannot know the future. God cannot know who will be saved. God cannot know the future actions of his libertarian free creatures with certainty. The Holy Spirit could not have inspired Paul to write these words if Open Theism is correct, for the Holy Spirit did not know which creatures would accept the gospel!Fortunately, the context of this passage shows that God does indeed know who all of believing Israel is. God has already set aside believing Israel... Paul can indeed write these words under inspiration since the Spirit knew who the members of believing Israel were at the time they were set aside! God's promise is for those who are currently saved into believing Israel and those who will be saved into believing Israel after the rapture of the body of Christ. God does not need to know individually who will be saved, but rather, makes a promise to those who respond to His call positively and convey them into the "all Israel" who will be delivered.

In Christ, --Jeremy

[Act9_12Out]

Joel,

You said,As to Jonah, I think all agree that in Jonah's prophecy of destruction, there was an implied condition that if they repented, God would spare them. The threat was real, but according to God's plan, they repented, and he spared them.Help me figure this one out... From your covenant / 5 point position, how can you make this statement? How can anything in the Bible be conditional? If God foreknows and predestines, then there is no condition... Secondly, how could the threat be real if God already knew they would repent? What is the purpose of the threat if God predestined them to repent anyway? From your point of view, the threat could not have been real, because God never foreknew that He would destroy Ninevah. This reminds me of another portion of Scripture... I'm sure you know the story. Moses was on Mt. Sinai with God getting the Law. Moses' brother Aaron talks the children of Israel into melting down their gold. They fashioned a golden calf to worship instead of God. God is a Jealous God! Let's see what happens next...The New King James Version

Exodus 32
32:9
And the Lord said to Moses, "I have seen this people, and indeed it is a stiff-necked people!
32:10
Now therefore, let Me alone, that My wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them. And I will make of you a great nation."Is the threat here real? I see no implication of a conditional statement. God tells Moses to let Him alone so that He may burn them all up! However, Moses prays...32:11
Then Moses pleaded with the Lord his God, and said: "Lord, why does Your wrath burn hot against Your people whom You have brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand?
32:12
Why should the Egyptians speak, and say, 'He brought them out to harm them, to kill them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth'? Turn from Your fierce wrath, and repent from this harm to Your people.
32:13
Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Your servants, to whom You swore by Your own self, and said to them, 'I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven; and all this land that I have spoken of I give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it forever.' "As a matter of fact, the people did not repent like the people of Nineveh did. God responded to Moses' prayer. How did He respond?32:14
So the Lord repented from the harm which He said He would do to His people.What an Awesome God we have! I really enjoy the way Jonah describes Him...The New King James Version

Jonah 4
4:2
So he prayed to the Lord, and said, "Ah, Lord, was not this what I said when I was still in my country? Therefore I fled previously to Tarshish; for I know that You are a gracious and merciful God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, One who repents from doing harm.


In Christ, --Jeremy

[joelkaki]

Joel,

I see the straw man you're trying to set up... You say,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, dispensationally, Israel here cannot refer to the body of Christ, but must refer to national, physical, ethnic Israel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wrong! Israel refers to any person who believed before the body of Christ started in Acts 9. There were definitely Gentlies who became proselytes and entered into the church that is believing Israel (Acts 2:5,10; Acts 8:26-40). The point of this passage is, Paul refers to Israel as the set aside group of believers. Let's read it with this distinction in mind.

I am not trying to set up any straw man. I am just trying to point what I believe to be serious difficulties with OV dispensationalism.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The New King James Version

Romans 11
11:25
For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.

*Paul is stating that believing Israel has been set aside positionally until "the fulness of the Gentiles has come in."

I think you are way off the mark here. "BLINDNESS"???Blindness happened to BELIEVING ISRAEL. Hold it. That is not good exegesis. As far as I can see, you are performing eisegesis not exegesis here. You are making your presuppositions fit into this text, and you can't do that. This says nothign about believing Israel being set aside. It says Israel has been blinded. "But even if our gospel is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them." (2 Corinthians 4:3-4). Blinding is not being set aside. Your interpretation is way off the mark here, in my opinion. Believing people are not blinded and in unbelief.


11:26
And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "The Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;

*All of believing Israel will definitely be saved. Why? Because they are believing Israel.

11:27
For this is My covenant with them, When I take away their sins."
11:28
Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers.

*Concerning the gospel, believing Israel are considered enemies for the sake of the body of Christ? Why? Because they have the circumcision gospel and Paul's gospel is the gospel of the uncircumcision. Paul goes to great lengths to admonish body of Christ believers to follow no other gospel than the gospel he taught them (Gal 1:6-10)

Here is the problem with your " circumcision gospel" "uncircumcision gospel" idea is a problem. Notice that the text says nothing whatsoever about the body of Christ. It is talking about Jews and Gentiles. Believing Gentiles does not = the body of Christ. Believing Gentiles + Believing JEws = the body of Christ.


*Concerning the election, they are beloved? Why? Because God chose believing Israel, specifically the tribe of Judah to bring Messiah through. He elected them for service, and they are beloved.

11:29
For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
11:30
For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience,

*The body of Christ has now obtained mercy through Israel's disobedience and rejection of her Messiah.

NOWHERE DOES THE TEXT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE BODY OF CHRIST OBTAINING MERCY. It says that the GENTILES have obtained mercy through the unbelief of the Jews. You are forcing your ideas about the body of Christ onto the text, when they are not there, it seems like to me. There is no dichotomy between believing Israel and the body of Christ here. It is talking about Jews and Gentiles.


11:31
even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy.

*Praise God, their setting aside is only temporary! God will again deal with believing Israel, and include believers into her church!

God will graft the Jews who believe back into the ONE olive tree of God's people, of which we are a part Now.


11:32
For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.

*God has set aside believing Israel, committed all believing Israel to obedience so that he might have mercy on all believing Israel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is absolutely nothing about believing Israel being set aside in this text. It just is not there. That idea cannot be put on this text.


You continue,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since salvation, according to Open Theism, is accomplished when a libertarian free creature believes on the gospel, and all Israel will be saved, then each member of national Israel (or at least the mass nation depending on viewpoint) must, by their own libertarian free will, choose to accept the gospel and be saved. The problem is that God cannot know the future. God cannot know who will be saved. God cannot know the future actions of his libertarian free creatures with certainty. The Holy Spirit could not have inspired Paul to write these words if Open Theism is correct, for the Holy Spirit did not know which creatures would accept the gospel!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fortunately, the context of this passage shows that God does indeed know who all of believing Israel is. God has already set aside believing Israel... Paul can indeed write these words under inspiration since the Spirit knew who the members of believing Israel were at the time they were set aside! God's promise is for those who are currently saved into believing Israel and those who will be saved into believing Israel after the rapture of the body of Christ. God does not need to know individually who will be saved, but rather, makes a promise to those who respond to His call positively and convey them into the "all Israel" who will be delivered.

In Christ, --Jeremy

The context clearly indicates other than what you are saying.

Joel

[Act9_12Out]

Joel,

I would like to join in on the Ephesians 1:11 discussion. Since I would like responses to my above posts, I'll make this one short, and elaborate further at a later date. Since you have been studying you Greek a bit more as of late (thanks to me bugging you all the time:bonk:), I would ask that you check the original in verses 10 and 11 of Chapter 1. "All things" in both verses have a definite article. They are ta panta in the original. They are literally, "The all things." Paul goes to great lengths to establish what exactly "the all things" are. In short, it is a specific "the all things," not "all things without exception."

--Jeremy

*I just read the above post written by "Joel". What happened to the real Joel? To paraphrase that horrific white rapper--

"Will the real joelkakai please stand up?":hi: Why not get your own ID "New Joel?"

[joelkaki]

Acts9, please don't take what I said offensively. I am sure that you did not purposefully mangle meanings or force presuppositions. I am quite sure that was not your intention. But I believe it happened nonetheless. When I believe there is a serious mangling of Scripture, I do speak up. So please do not take my comments in any other way that they are meant--love for the truth, and furious desire to make that truth known, and keep that truth pure. So if I offended you, I apologize. No offense intended. But I do have to speak what I believe to be the truth.

Joel

[Act9_12Out]

I have no idea what you're talking about....:no:

||
||
||
\/


Two posts down... :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[joelkaki]

Acts9, I read through the post again, and it did seem to come across harsher than I meant it too. I made a few changes that will hopefully make it seem less that way. But my point remains the same--I think that the interpretation you presented is just not on the mark (Of course we all think that about the other person, but I tried to defend it).


Joel

[joelkaki]

I have no idea what you're talking about....

Now you lost me. If you weren't talking about what I thought you were talking about, then what were you talking about?:huh:


Joel

[Act9_12Out]

Joel,

No offense taken brother!:yipee: You are right when you say,I think that the interpretation you presented is just not on the mark (Of course we all think that about the other personThe problem is, I can't make that same accusation (yet!:cool:) because you haven't been clear as to what you believe concerning Romans 11:26. Please understand, my foundation of the body of Christ being a separate, distinct body of believers from believing Israel does not stand alone on Romans 11. I'm sure you understand that for lack of time and space, the entire position cannot be proven in one post. Imagine if I asked you to give a full reasoned post as to why you are a covenant theologian. It would be impossible for you to do so in the allowed 12,000 characters. However, since you think my exegesis is not plausible, please tell me what you think about Romans 11:26 when God says, "All Israel will be saved?"

--Jeremy

[joelkaki]

At the point I am at right now, I believe it refers to the mass of national, physical Israel. But don't confuse me with most dispensationalists on this point. I do not believe that God will set up a distinct, separate relationship with the nation of Israel in the future. I believe (Rom 11:26) that the mass nation of Israel will be saved one day, and brought into the body of Christ, the one people of God, the olive tree.


Joel

[bar Jonah]

02-26-2003 @ 05:57 PM
joelkaki:
That is not what the verse says. It says that He WORKS them according to his plan. To work is an action. He does not incorporate our actions and decisions into His plan. We act and we decide because he works them according to his plan. You cannot switch words to suit your purpose. It says "According to", not "into." Everything that happens happens because he worked it according to his plan. He does not work them into his plan. You make it sound as if some things happen outside of God's plan, and he figures out some way to respond to use it for his plan. That is a mangling of this verse. The things that happen, happen (are worked) because of His will.
Understood. But if you look at other verses such as Jeremiah 18, we see that God's will is for us to make choices and then for Himself to respond... and this is the explanation of the Will that is referred to here in Ephesians 1:11. So when things work according to His will, those things are working in exactly the sense I and YXBoom have already described.
I never said God does not respond to the actions and decisions of men; but those actions and decisions were part of his plan in the first place.

...

Sure, God responds; but that does not mean that our actions were not part of his predetermined plan.

Joel
How can you say He is responding to our actions if He made His decisions before we committed our actions? Did He decide what our actions would be? Does He make us act as we do, as some Calvinists believe? To respond to something means to choose a reaction after the initial action. You're violating causational logic, my friend.

[joelkaki]

How can you say He is responding to our actions if He made His decisions before we committed our actions? Did He decide what our actions would be? Does He make us act as we do, as some Calvinists believe? To respond to something means to choose a reaction after the initial action. You're violating causational logic, my friend.

From our human point of view, God responds. He does not make us act as we do. He doesn't have to. I don't know how he does it, but we always willingly choose what he predestined. There is no need to make us do it; we do it willingly. God does choose a reaction, but that does not mean he did not decide beforehand what that would be. I do the same thing all the time. I decide that when someone does a, I will respond with b. Does that mean I didn't really respond? No. Plus, we see things from a human vantage point.

Joel

[bar Jonah]

03-03-2003 @ 09:24 AM
joelkaki:
From our human point of view, God responds. He does not make us act as we do. He doesn't have to. I don't know how he does it, but we always willingly choose what he predestined. There is no need to make us do it; we do it willingly. God does choose a reaction, but that does not mean he did not decide beforehand what that would be. I do the same thing all the time. I decide that when someone does a, I will respond with b. Does that mean I didn't really respond? No. Plus, we see things from a human vantage point.

Joel
So you agree that God foresees various possibilities, knows how He will respond to A and B and C and D, and then when they happen, He responds as according to the open-ended intentions He had all along?

[joelkaki]

So you agree that God foresees various possibilities, knows how He will respond to A and B and C and D, and then when they happen, He responds as according to the open-ended intentions He had all along?

I think you probably know I disagree. God knows all the possiblities. But he has decided for one to actually take place, according to his plan. When the thing he decided would happen takes place, he responds as he predetermined to do.

Joel

[bar Jonah]

03-03-2003 @ 10:09 AM
joelkaki:

So you agree that God foresees various possibilities, knows how He will respond to A and B and C and D, and then when they happen, He responds as according to the open-ended intentions He had all along?

I think you probably know I disagree. God knows all the possiblities. But he has decided for one to actually take place, according to his plan. When the thing he decided would happen takes place, he responds as he predetermined to do.

Joel
If God knows X is going to happen, then how can we have any choice? If we have choice, that would violate God's will in the context of your view.

If God knows I am going to choose X, how can I possibly choose anything other than X? If He knows I will choose X, am I able to choose Y or Z? That would make me more powerful than God, therefore if you say that we also have the ability to choose, make decisions... then you are limiting God.

[joelkaki]

If God knows X is going to happen, then how can we have any choice? If we have choice, that would violate God's will in the context of your view.

If God knows I am going to choose X, how can I possibly choose anything other than X? If He knows I will choose X, am I able to choose Y or Z? That would make me more powerful than God, therefore if you say that we also have the ability to choose, make decisions... then you are limiting God.

I am much less concerned about us having choice than protecting the sovereignty of God. God's sovereign will is of much greater importance to me than human free will. It is all for his glory, so however he decides it should go is OK with me.

We have the ability (I am trying to think of another word that really fits better--ability could cause confusion) to choose Y or Z, but we will always choose X according to God's will. I know that sounds a little contradictory, hence my wish for another word. Let me try again. There is nothing morally hindering us from choosing Y or Z (if not speaking of matters of salvation, just ordinary things), so we have that ability. But we will choose according to God's will, yet it is not forced. How does God do that? I don't know. Acts 2:23 and 24 clearly tell us that God predetermined for men to lawlessly crucify Christ, and yet they were still responsible. He did not force them to do it. They did it willingly. There was no forcing them; it was freely done by their will. Thus I affirm that God predestines what takes place, and that that always happens, yet man does so willingly, and is therefore responsible.

Joel

[bar Jonah]

03-03-2003 @ 04:46 PM
joelkaki:

I am much less concerned about us having choice than protecting the sovereignty of God. God's sovereign will is of much greater importance to me than human free will. It is all for his glory, so however he decides it should go is OK with me.
And it's okay with me, too. I really am fine with that, if that is the truth. But you are (I believe) detracting from another aspect of God's character, and THAT'S what many of us are concerned about.
03-03-2003 @ 04:46 PM
joelkaki:We have the ability (I am trying to think of another word that really fits better--ability could cause confusion) to choose Y or Z, but we will always choose X according to God's will. I know that sounds a little contradictory, hence my wish for another word. Let me try again. There is nothing morally hindering us from choosing Y or Z (if not speaking of matters of salvation, just ordinary things), so we have that ability. But we will choose according to God's will, yet it is not forced. How does God do that? I don't know.
And God can make an object so big that He can't lift it. And He can make round squares. I don't know how He can do it... but He just can.

Except that God "cannot" and does not perform the logically impossible. God is logical and rational, and "limited" by those boundaries. Of course, that is a false limitation, an imaginary one -- any being that does the illogical and irrational is not, by definition, a supreme being.

My point is, if God makes us do something, then we have no choice. You seem to want it both ways, Joel. If you believe we're forced to act as we do, then don't be halfway, don't be middle-of-the-road, don't be lukewarm ... Admit it, accept it, and stand on it. But don't try to have it both ways. If God predestines our actions, then we can't do anything other than His predestinary will. To say He determined what we will do but we still have a choice... you're right, that sounds self-contradictory. Because it is.
03-03-2003 @ 04:46 PM
joelkaki: Acts 2:23 and 24 clearly tell us that God predetermined for men to lawlessly crucify Christ, and yet they were still responsible. He did not force them to do it. They did it willingly. There was no forcing them; it was freely done by their will. Thus I affirm that God predestines what takes place, and that that always happens, yet man does so willingly, and is therefore responsible.

Joel
Yes, God did predestine men do perform that action. It doesn't say He predestined specific people to do it that exact way, but God did indeed predestine since the Garden of Eden for that event to someday take place.

You see, the reason we often call our belief the Partially Open View is precisely because of things like this. God does know the future to some degree. Just not completely. What does God know for sure? Well, when there is no free will involved, and only mechanical principles following a set of physical laws... then the outcome is 100% predictable.

For example, when a sun explodes on the other side of the universe, God knows exactly where every atom is going to go, how fast, etc. Also, when God makes an unconditional decision for an event to come about, then He also knows this aspect of the future as well. Sometimes, when God gives prophecy through His servants, such prophecies are (silently or otherwise) conditional upon the decisions and actions of men. But sometimes, there is no room for conditions. And the biggest example of this, for obvious reasons, is the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. God decided this would happen, and no degree of human free will was going to be alllowed to prevent it. Therefore, it is certainly not outside God's ability or providence to force the specific actions of certain men at that time to make the situation play out according to His will, particularly in order to make it fit messianic prophecy regarding that event. (His bones wouldn't be broken, they'd cast lots for His clothes, etc.) It didn't have to be Pontius Pilate, and it didn't have to be those exact centurians, and it possibly didn't even have to be Judas who would betray Him. And we believe God wouldn't have affected whether these people would deny or accept God. He simply would have chosen people who weren't accepting God, and used them to bring about this event.

So we believe it is entirely possible (maybe even probable) that God would indeed violate the free will of men to force them to commit certain acts. But such behavior on God's part is extremely rare and reserved only for very specific and special situations, above all including the death and resurrection of Jesus.

[joelkaki]

And God can make an object so big that He can't lift it. And He can make round squares. I don't know how He can do it... but He just can.

Except that God "cannot" and does not perform the logically impossible. God is logical and rational, and "limited" by those boundaries. Of course, that is a false limitation, an imaginary one -- any being that does the illogical and irrational is not, by definition, a supreme being.

OK, but I do not see how what I am saying is illogical or irrational. The point is really that if Scripture teaches it, it is not illogical, and we must accept it.


My point is, if God makes us do something, then we have no choice. You seem to want it both ways, Joel. If you believe we're forced to act as we do, then don't be halfway, don't be middle-of-the-road, don't be lukewarm ... Admit it, accept it, and stand on it. But don't try to have it both ways. If God predestines our actions, then we can't do anything other than His predestinary will. To say He determined what we will do but we still have a choice... you're right, that sounds self-contradictory. Because it is.

Did you miss my whole post? God doesn't make us do anything. He doesn't force us. He does not have to. We always choose according to his predestined will. How? Again, I don't know. "The secret things are of the Lord." Acts 13:48 tells us that as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. God ordained certain ones of them to have eternal life. Does that mean that they did not willingly follow Christ? Did God force them to follow him and believe in Him? No. God's ways are higher than ours. He works all according to his plan, and that always takes place. He does not have to force us. We always willingly choose what was predestined to take place. Could we have chosen the other thing? Not really, when you get down to it. If you have X, Y, and Z, and God predestined us to choose X, then we will choose X, yet we are not forced, it does not violate our wills; we do it willingly.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
03-03-2003 @ 04:46 PM
joelkaki: Acts 2:23 and 24 clearly tell us that God predetermined for men to lawlessly crucify Christ, and yet they were still responsible. He did not force them to do it. They did it willingly. There was no forcing them; it was freely done by their will. Thus I affirm that God predestines what takes place, and that that always happens, yet man does so willingly, and is therefore responsible.

Joel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Yes, God did predestine men do perform that action. It doesn't say He predestined specific people to do it that exact way, but God did indeed predestine since the Garden of Eden for that event to someday take place.

You are adding an awful lot of stuff in there that it doesn't really say anthing about.


You see, the reason we often call our belief the Partially Open View is precisely because of things like this. God does know the future to some degree. Just not completely. What does God know for sure? Well, when there is no free will involved, and only mechanical principles following a set of physical laws... then the outcome is 100% predictable.

For example, when a sun explodes on the other side of the universe, God knows exactly where every atom is going to go, how fast, etc. Also, when God makes an unconditional decision for an event to come about, then He also knows this aspect of the future as well. Sometimes, when God gives prophecy through His servants, such prophecies are (silently or otherwise) conditional upon the decisions and actions of men. But sometimes, there is no room for conditions. And the biggest example of this, for obvious reasons, is the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. God decided this would happen, and no degree of human free will was going to be alllowed to prevent it. Therefore, it is certainly not outside God's ability or providence to force the specific actions of certain men at that time to make the situation play out according to His will, particularly in order to make it fit messianic prophecy regarding that event. (His bones wouldn't be broken, they'd cast lots for His clothes, etc.) It didn't have to be Pontius Pilate, and it didn't have to be those exact centurians, and it possibly didn't even have to be Judas who would betray Him. And we believe God wouldn't have affected whether these people would deny or accept God. He simply would have chosen people who weren't accepting God, and used them to bring about this event.

So we believe it is entirely possible (maybe even probable) that God would indeed violate the free will of men to force them to commit certain acts. But such behavior on God's part is extremely rare and reserved only for very specific and special situations, above all including the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Your view seems totally illogical. If some things are closed, then why can't all things be? If the future is mostly open, then we really can have no faith in the promises of God, for they might not really take place anyway.

Joel

[Act9_12Out]

Joel,

You said,As to Jonah, I think all agree that in Jonah's prophecy of destruction, there was an implied condition that if they repented, God would spare them. The threat was real, but according to God's plan, they repented, and he spared them.Help me figure this one out... From your covenant / 5 point position, how can you make this statement? How can anything in the Bible be conditional? If God foreknows and predestines, then there is no condition... Secondly, how could the threat be real if God already knew they would repent? What is the purpose of the threat if God predestined them to repent anyway? From your point of view, the threat could not have been real, because God never foreknew that He would destroy Ninevah. This reminds me of another portion of Scripture... I'm sure you know the story. Moses was on Mt. Sinai with God getting the Law. Moses' brother Aaron talks the children of Israel into melting down their gold. They fashioned a golden calf to worship instead of God. God is a Jealous God! Let's see what happens next...The New King James Version

Exodus 32
32:9
And the Lord said to Moses, "I have seen this people, and indeed it is a stiff-necked people!
32:10
Now therefore, let Me alone, that My wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them. And I will make of you a great nation."Is the threat here real? I see no implication of a conditional statement. God tells Moses to let Him alone so that He may burn them all up! However, Moses prays...32:11
Then Moses pleaded with the Lord his God, and said: "Lord, why does Your wrath burn hot against Your people whom You have brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand?
32:12
Why should the Egyptians speak, and say, 'He brought them out to harm them, to kill them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth'? Turn from Your fierce wrath, and repent from this harm to Your people.
32:13
Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Your servants, to whom You swore by Your own self, and said to them, 'I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven; and all this land that I have spoken of I give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it forever.' "As a matter of fact, the people did not repent like the people of Nineveh did. God responded to Moses' prayer. How did He respond?32:14
So the Lord repented from the harm which He said He would do to His people.What an Awesome God we have! I really enjoy the way Jonah describes Him...The New King James Version

Jonah 4
4:2
So he prayed to the Lord, and said, "Ah, Lord, was not this what I said when I was still in my country? Therefore I fled previously to Tarshish; for I know that You are a gracious and merciful God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, One who repents from doing harm.In Christ, --Jeremy

[bar Jonah]

03-04-2003 @ 07:16 AM
joelkaki:

Your view seems totally illogical. If some things are closed, then why can't all things be? If the future is mostly open, then we really can have no faith in the promises of God, for they might not really take place anyway.

Joel
We didn't say the future can't be open. We said God decided for us to have free will. God is entirely capable of knowing everything about the future, 100%. But if He does that, then we have no choice. If He knows we will do X, then we cannot choose Y or Z, can we? We have no choice. We are no more than complicated robots.

I can program my screensaver to say "Jim is God! Praise Jim!" And I can bask in the adulation of that worship. But is it real? Of course not. It means nothing. Why? Because it has no choice but to do as I programmed it. God desires a real, loving relationship with created beings who choose Him and love him by choice. Anything else would be my stupid screensaver, programmed and pointless. All for the greater glory of God? According to who? For whose benefit? The only beings around to witness it are angels predestined by God, and human beings predestined by God. A bunch of robots watching the glory of the Creator, and applauding because they are programmed to.

[joelkaki]

Help me figure this one out... From your covenant / 5 point position, how can you make this statement? How can anything in the Bible be conditional? If God foreknows and predestines, then there is no condition...

The problem with us discussing this is that you and I have very different definitions for things like "conditional" and "repent" and so on. You seem to think that "condition" and "repent" necessarily mean no future knowledge can be had. I don't. God was going to destroy the city of Ninevah unless they repented of their sin. Repentance was the condition. They had to repent of their sin for him to not destroy them as he said through Jonah. Whether or not God knew beforehand they would repent or not really doesn't affect it being a "condition" one way or the other. Had they not repented, they would have been destroyed. God knew that they would fulfill the implied condition of repentance.


Secondly, how could the threat be real if God already knew they would repent? What is the purpose of the threat if God predestined them to repent anyway? From your point of view, the threat could not have been real, because God never foreknew that He would destroy Ninevah.

Because if they had not repented, He would certainly have destroyed them. God predestines not only the ends, but also the means, and his warning through the prophet Jonah was that means. God's threat was very real. If Nineveh had not repented, they would have been destroyed, but God used His predestined threat to accomplish the predestined repentance.


This reminds me of another portion of Scripture... I'm sure you know the story. Moses was on Mt. Sinai with God getting the Law. Moses' brother Aaron talks the children of Israel into melting down their gold. They fashioned a golden calf to worship instead of God. God is a Jealous God! Let's see what happens next...
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The New King James Version

Exodus 32
32:9
And the Lord said to Moses, "I have seen this people, and indeed it is a stiff-necked people!
32:10
Now therefore, let Me alone, that My wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them. And I will make of you a great nation."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is the threat here real? I see no implication of a conditional statement. God tells Moses to let Him alone so that He may burn them all up! However, Moses prays...
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
32:11
Then Moses pleaded with the Lord his God, and said: "Lord, why does Your wrath burn hot against Your people whom You have brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand?
32:12
Why should the Egyptians speak, and say, 'He brought them out to harm them, to kill them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth'? Turn from Your fierce wrath, and repent from this harm to Your people.
32:13
Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Your servants, to whom You swore by Your own self, and said to them, 'I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven; and all this land that I have spoken of I give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it forever.' "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As a matter of fact, the people did not repent like the people of Nineveh did. God responded to Moses' prayer. How did He respond?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
32:14
So the Lord repented from the harm which He said He would do to His people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What an Awesome God we have! I really enjoy the way Jonah describes Him...
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The New King James Version

Jonah 4
4:2
So he prayed to the Lord, and said, "Ah, Lord, was not this what I said when I was still in my country? Therefore I fled previously to Tarshish; for I know that You are a gracious and merciful God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, One who repents from doing harm.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Christ, --Jeremy

God's repentance is not like our repentance. He has knowledge of the future unlike us.
1 Samuel 15:29--"And also the Strength of Israel will not lie or relent. He is not a man that He should relent." It is very clear that God does not relent. (repent in some versions) But then on the examples you cited it would seem that He does. So there is clearly a difference in God's repentance and our repentance. He is not a man, that He should repent like we do. His foreknowledge does not exclude His "repentance."
One more note:
Open Theism is based almost exclusively on narrative texts, which are not necessarily meant to teach doctrine. You will not find support in the books specifically given for doctrine. In narrative texts, often man-like qualities will be given to God, not because He is actually like that, but because it is written as if He is, so that we as humans can understand it.

I will be getting back on the rest of the threads and posts around here, but I just haven't been able to be online much.

Joel

[joelkaki]

We didn't say the future can't be open. We said God decided for us to have free will. God is entirely capable of knowing everything about the future, 100%. But if He does that, then we have no choice. If He knows we will do X, then we cannot choose Y or Z, can we? We have no choice. We are no more than complicated robots.

Hmm, not exactly what you and other OVers have said elsewhere. You said God does not know the future because the future does not exist yet, and as such, cannot be known? So which is it? Does God restrict his knowledge or can the future not be known? The point is, I don't honestly care whether we have choice or not, as long as I believe what I am saying is what the Bible teaches. Free will really doesn't matter to me that much. I find much more comfort in the fact that God does control everything.
We always choose what is predestined willingly. For instance, when I decide to go to the grocery store, I do not feel as if some invisible hand is picking me up, forcibly throwing me down the street to the store. I do it willingly. I choose to do it. God doesn't have to force me. I do it willingly.


I can program my screensaver to say "Jim is God! Praise Jim!" And I can bask in the adulation of that worship. But is it real? Of course not. It means nothing. Why? Because it has no choice but to do as I programmed it. God desires a real, loving relationship with created beings who choose Him and love him by choice. Anything else would be my stupid screensaver, programmed and pointless. All for the greater glory of God? According to who? For whose benefit? The only beings around to witness it are angels predestined by God, and human beings predestined by God. A bunch of robots watching the glory of the Creator, and applauding because they are programmed to.

Why God does what he does is not for us to ask. It is all for his glory, so I don't question him.

Joel

[PuritanD]

Joel,

I have to commend you for your patience and willingness to discuss such a topic.

When I first saw OV dispensationalism, I nearly flipped my lid. Being friendly to certain dispensational assertions, I could not get how that is at all possible.

RightIdea seemed to argue that there are only two eschatological movements to chose from, covenantal or dispensatinal. Well, that is not all true. With OV, they have to make their own eschatology. For how can we be sure that Revelation would every come true. It is possible but hey who knows what man could do to thwart it. Their understanding of prediction/prophecy is their eschatology, dispensationalism cannot fit into their system due to the dispensatinal system of understanding prophecy/preditions. They can hem and haw at it but as you state, it is a logical fallicy unless they redefine the terms.

As for Jonah, there may also be the possiblity that God did what He did for the sake of Jonah as much as for the citizens of Ninevah. For, the story is truly about this prophet and how God wants him aware that Gentiles are as much of a concern as Jews to Him.

Keep up the good fight Joel.

PuritanD

[doogieduff]

joelkaki said:

"By this reasoning, God can become a false prophet to be judged according to the laws of the OT (or at least Paul could of for writing that in Romans--but it was inspired by God). Romans 11:26 does not say, "I believe or think all Israel will be saved.'' It says explicitly, "ALL ISRAEL WILL BE SAVED."

Not only does this make God a false prophet, it means Scripture is not inerrant. The Scriptures are fallible, which means we really can't trust them at all. These are the horrible consequences of open theism.

If God only thinks this is what will happen, and is not completely sure, and it could turn out that no Israel is saved, then Paul sure might have gone to a whole lot of wasted effort in writing Romans 11 (not to mention chapters 9 and 10)."

First of all, God is the lawgiver. You are putting the law above God by saying God can become a false prophet according to the law. God is above all things. If I told my kids, that in exactly one month, we would be going to Disneyland, and had full intentions of taking them, yet when one month came up, and on the way to the airport, we got a flattire, would I be a false prophet to you? Of course not. But if I told my kids that in one month we would be going to Disneyland, knowing full well that I couldn't afford it and there would be no possibility of going, would I be a false prophet? You bet. You see, the kids would have no idea, but i knew when I made the statement. So technically, your view makes God look like a false prophet, not mine.

Also, let's read Joshua 3:10

"Jos 3:10 - And Joshua said, By this you shall know the living God is among you, and that He will WITHOUT FAIL drive out from before you the Canaanites and the Hittites and the Hivites and the Perizittes and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Jebusites. "

This never happened! Does this make the Bible errant and fallible? By my view, no. By yours, most definitely. This verse says that God will without fail drive out those nations, yet it never happened. How can God remain truthful in this verse if He knows with 100% certainty that it will never happen?

[Act9_12Out]

joel,

You said,You seem to think that "condition" and "repent" necessarily mean no future knowledge can be had. I don't.That's most definitely the point. A condition gives the implication that there is a choice. If it is a true free choice, how can that future free choice be "known?" You continue,God was going to destroy the city of Ninevah unless they repented of their sin. Repentance was the condition. They had to repent of their sin for him to not destroy them as he said through Jonah.Again, the threat to destroy the city was not real since you say God already "knew" they would repent. In the original statement made by Jonah under the inspiration of God, there is no condition. Jonah said, "Yet 40 days and Ninevah shall be overthrown." This is God's stated purpose. God's plan was to destroy Ninevah. However, the people unexpectedly repented of their sins, and God spared them. You put the cart before the horse here... You continue,Whether or not God knew beforehand they would repent or not really doesn't affect it being a "condition" one way or the other.It most definitely does...Had they not repented, they would have been destroyed.I agree...God knew that they would fulfill the implied condition of repentance.Your previous statement is untrue then. Again, if God knew what they would do, then the original threat is a lie from God. You say,God predestines not only the ends, but also the means, and his warning through the prophet Jonah was that means.Then the predestined "end" makes the original predestined "means" untrue. God never "predestined" destruction at all. God's predestination caused Jonah to lie because Jonah said, "Yet 40 days and Ninevah shall be overthrown!" Next, to respond to Exodus 32, you respond with,1 Samuel 15:29--"And also the Strength of Israel will not lie or relent. He is not a man that He should relent." It is very clear that God does not relent. (repent in some versions)Wow, that's funny... In the same passage, God repents twice...1 Samuel 15
15:11
"I repent that I have set up Saul as king, for he has turned back from following Me, and has not performed My commandments." And it grieved Samuel, and he cried out to the Lord all night.

15:35
And Samuel went 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.What you fail to realize in this text is that God most definitely repented that He set up Saul as king. In 1 Sam 15:29, which you quoted, the context shows that God will not repent in that specific instance and change His mind about taking the kingdom from Saul. God will not restore Saul to the throne because of Saul's false repentance and blame on the people. You continue,In narrative texts, often man-like qualities will be given to God, not because He is actually like that, but because it is written as if He is, so that we as humans can understand it.Oh, I see... God is such an inadequate communicator, He needs to tell us somethig about Himself that isn't really true... I'm sorry joel, God is The Most Perfect Communicator in the Universe. When God says something, I take it at face value that it is true. I don't have to "try to figure out what God is really saying," since He describes Himself in ways that are not true... You continue,But then on the examples you cited it would seem that He does. So there is clearly a difference in God's repentance and our repentance. He is not a man, that He should repent like we do. His foreknowledge does not exclude His "repentance."OK joel, if God doesn't really mean what He says, what does it mean when God says He repents, or has a change of mind?

In Christ, --Jeremy

[PuritanD]

03-13-2003 @ 09:09 PM
Act9_12Out:

Oh, I see... God is such an inadequate communicator, He needs to tell us somethig about Himself that isn't really true... I'm sorry joel, God is The Most Perfect Communicator in the Universe. When God says something, I take it at face value that it is true. I don't have to "try to figure out what God is really saying," since He describes Himself in ways that are not true...

I am quite surprised but why should I be. X9 will then agree with the Psalmist then when God is being described to be like a hen. Therefore, He must have wings, feathers, etc. Are you suggesting then that you are willing to cut your hand off or pluck your eye out, see Mark 9:43ff.

I think that it is absurd to think that you would limit God's ability to use language. Have you every used hyperbole, anthropomorphism, similies, metaphors, etc.? If so, why shouldn't God?

God being the great communicator realize that we finite beings are incapable of grasping the infinite and decided to use the many avenues of language in describing Himself to us so that we may just have an inkling of who He is. So why can we not allow for Him to use anthropomorphisms in describing Himself to us?

Praise the Lord for His desire to communicate at our finite level of understanding and His ability as the GREAT COMMUNICATOR to realise our limitations and use such devices as anthropomorphism.

PuritanD

[Act9_12Out]

Puritan,

A couple of points here... You say,God being the great communicator realize that we finite beings are incapable of grasping the infinite and decided to use the many avenues of language in describing Himself to us so that we may just have an inkling of who He is.Sorry, but infinity is an illogical concept. MY God's knowledge is immesurable yes, but not illogical... Check the Hebrew on this... You continue,So why can we not allow for Him to use anthropomorphisms in describing Himself to us?Actually, the correct term is anthropopathism. Same question to you... When God uses these apparent anthropomorphisms / anthropopathisms, what is He trying to communicate? When the Bible refers to God repenting or not repenting 32 times in the OT, what is God really trying to tell us if we are too "finite" to understand His words?

--Jeremy

[PuritanD]

03-14-2003 @ 12:50 AM
Act9_12Out:

Sorry, but infinity is an illogical concept. MY God's knowledge is immesurable yes, but not illogical...

Interesting, so how do you measure the immesurable? I did not realize the huge difference between 'immesurable' and 'infinite.' It seems that you are trying to split hairs here. How is the term 'infinite' illogical when used to compare to the finite?

Actually, the correct term is anthropopathism. Same question to you... When God uses these apparent anthropomorphisms / anthropopathisms, what is He trying to communicate? When the Bible refers to God repenting or not repenting 32 times in the OT, what is God really trying to tell us if we are too "finite" to understand His words?

--Jeremy

You need to check your dictionary. Please feel free to look up anthropomorphism again.

[doogieduff]

03-13-2003 @ 09:43 PM
PuritanD:



I am quite surprised but why should I be. X9 will then agree with the Psalmist then when God is being described to be like a hen. Therefore, He must have wings, feathers, etc. Are you suggesting then that you are willing to cut your hand off or pluck your eye out, see Mark 9:43ff.

I think that it is absurd to think that you would limit God's ability to use language. Have you every used hyperbole, anthropomorphism, similies, metaphors, etc.? If so, why shouldn't God?

God being the great communicator realize that we finite beings are incapable of grasping the infinite and decided to use the many avenues of language in describing Himself to us so that we may just have an inkling of who He is. So why can we not allow for Him to use anthropomorphisms in describing Himself to us?

Praise the Lord for His desire to communicate at our finite level of understanding and His ability as the GREAT COMMUNICATOR to realise our limitations and use such devices as anthropomorphism.

PuritanD

I think that when God showed us how to recieve salvation through Christ, that it was only an anthropomorphism. He didn't mean what He said. No one actually knows the true method for salvation because God used anthropomorphisms.

[bar Jonah]

Exactly, Doogie.

To say X9ers must therefore believe God is a hen is preposterous. No one argues that there are no anthropomorphisms or anthropopathisms in scripture. The debate is on how much of scripture is so.

What does it mean when it says God repents? Relents?

What does it mean when it tells us God loves? Augustine once wrote that only a person with a child's mentality could ever believe God really loves or experiences other emotions.

[Act9_12Out]

Puritan,

You said,Interesting, so how do you measure the immesurable? I did not realize the huge difference between 'immesurable' and 'infinite.' It seems that you are trying to split hairs here. How is the term 'infinite' illogical when used to compare to the finite?I assume you reference Psalms 147:5 when you refer to God's understanding being infinite.Psalms 147
147:5
Great is our Lord, and mighty in power; His understanding is infinite.However, the Hebrew word actually means immeasurable. The huge difference here is that the word implies that something is immeasuarble from man's viewpoint, but not God's.Genesis 41
41:49
Joseph gathered very much grain, as the sand of the sea, until he stopped counting, for it was immeasurable.Joseph was unable to count the grain, but God is not. God knows exactly how much grain there was. The point of me even bringing this up is that so many Christians believe that God's knowledge is "infinite" which somehow means we "finite" humans have no way of beginning to underestand God. I disagree. For example, where do two equidistant parallel lines intersect? Possibly at infinity? Now that is definitely an illogical concept that "finite" humans cannot understand. God's knowledge is immesurable yes, illogical, no... You continue,You need to check your dictionary. Please feel free to look up anthropomorphism again.Sorry brother, wrong again... We are discussing God's repentance. The Hebrew word nacham attributed to God 32 times in the OT is translated a number of ways, always showing a change in God's emotions. It is translated, repent, relent, was sorry, grieved, etc... Therefore, anthropopathism most definitely fits.

anthropopathism

\An`thro*pop"a*thism\, Anthropopathy\An`thro*pop"a*thy\, n. [Gr. ?; ? man + ? suffering, affection, passion, ?, ?, to suffer.] The ascription of human feelings or passions to God, or to a polytheistic deity.

Anthropomorphism ascribes human attributes to God...

anthropomorphism

\An`thro*po*mor"phism\, n. [Gr. ? of human form; ? man + ? form.] 1. The representation of the Deity, or of a polytheistic deity, under a human form, or with human attributes.

There is a huge difference here... Again I ask, when God uses anthropomorphisms / anthropopathisms from your viewpoint, what is God really trying to communicate to us? To be even more specific, when God repented, relented, was sorry, was grieved, etc... that He chose Saul to be king over Israel in 1 Samuel 15:11 and 1 Samuel 15:35, what was He really trying to communicate if He was not indeed repentant, relenting, grieved, or was sorry?

In Christ, --Jeremy

[joelkaki]

I've been out of town for a bit, so it may take me a bit to catch up here.

Joel

[joelkaki]

First of all, God is the lawgiver. You are putting the law above God by saying God can become a false prophet according to the law. God is above all things. If I told my kids, that in exactly one month, we would be going to Disneyland, and had full intentions of taking them, yet when one month came up, and on the way to the airport, we got a flattire, would I be a false prophet to you?

You see, again, Open Theism recreates God into man's image. God does not have "flat tires."


Of course not. But if I told my kids that in one month we would be going to Disneyland, knowing full well that I couldn't afford it and there would be no possibility of going, would I be a false prophet? You bet. You see, the kids would have no idea, but i knew when I made the statement. So technically, your view makes God look like a false prophet, not mine.

Also, let's read Joshua 3:10

"Jos 3:10 - And Joshua said, By this you shall know the living God is among you, and that He will WITHOUT FAIL drive out from before you the Canaanites and the Hittites and the Hivites and the Perizittes and the Girga****es and the Amorites and the Jebusites. "

This never happened! Does this make the Bible errant and fallible? By my view, no. By yours, most definitely. This verse says that God will without fail drive out those nations, yet it never happened. How can God remain truthful in this verse if He knows with 100% certainty that it will never happen?

Please provide the verse that says it did not happen. I do not remember the exact situation, and yes I did go back quickly and look at the context.

Joel

[Act9_12Out]

Big *BUMP* for Puritan & Joel...

:bonk:

What do all those "anthros" mean?

[joelkaki]

“ You seem to think that "condition" and "repent" necessarily mean no future knowledge can be had. I don't. ”

That's most definitely the point. A condition gives the implication that there is a choice. If it is a true free choice, how can that future free choice be "known?"

In terms of simple foreknowledge, because the knowledge is based on the choice. However, I don't believe I have ever said that we have "true free choice" at least in the sense you mean it.
I can know someone is going to do something, yet that does not mean that they did not freely choose what they would do.


You continue,“ God was going to destroy the city of Ninevah unless they repented of their sin. Repentance was the condition. They had to repent of their sin for him to not destroy them as he said through Jonah. ”

Again, the threat to destroy the city was not real since you say God already "knew" they would repent. In the original statement made by Jonah under the inspiration of God, there is no condition. Jonah said, "Yet 40 days and Ninevah shall be overthrown." This is God's stated purpose. God's plan was to destroy Ninevah. However, the people unexpectedly repented of their sins, and God spared them. You put the cart before the horse here...
You continue,“ Whether or not God knew beforehand they would repent or not really doesn't affect it being a "condition" one way or the other. ”

It most definitely does...“ Had they not repented, they would have been destroyed. ”

I agree...“ God knew that they would fulfill the implied condition of repentance. ”

Your previous statement is untrue then. Again, if God knew what they would do, then the original threat is a lie from God. You say,“ God predestines not only the ends, but also the means, and his warning through the prophet Jonah was that means. ”


I agree that there was no explicitly stated condition. But God had an implied condition in his threat. That implied condition was obviously repentance. The threat was very real. Consider this scenario:
You owe me a certain amount of money. You have not paid that amount on time. However, you tell someone that you are coming that very day to pay me, and that person, unbeknownst to you, tells me what you told him before you come to pay me. Now, if I were to call you and say, "If you do not pay me the money, I am going to sue you," then that threat would be real, would it not? I knew you were going to pay me, but yet my threat was still real.
Obviously this illustration isn't the best (they almost never fit exactly), but hopefully it gets the point across.
Another point about Jonah and Nineveh:
God knew (actually he predestined that they would, but we can leave it on the level of simple foreknowledge for the purposes of this debate if you want) that they would repent at the preaching of Jonah, who proclaimed their destruction. Thus he sent Jonah to preach to them the threat, so that they would repent.


Then the predestined "end" makes the original predestined "means" untrue. God never "predestined" destruction at all. God's predestination caused Jonah to lie because Jonah said, "Yet 40 days and Ninevah shall be overthrown!"

The predestined means was not the actual destruction, but the proclamation of the destruction with the implied condition of repentance.


Next, to respond to Exodus 32, you respond with,“ 1 Samuel 15:29--"And also the Strength of Israel will not lie or relent. He is not a man that He should relent." It is very clear that God does not relent. (repent in some versions) ”

Wow, that's funny... In the same passage, God repents twice...“ 1 Samuel 15
15:11
"I repent that I have set up Saul as king, for he has turned back from following Me, and has not performed My commandments." And it grieved Samuel, and he cried out to the Lord all night.

15:35
And Samuel went 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. ”

What you fail to realize in this text is that God most definitely repented that He set up Saul as king. In 1 Sam 15:29, which you quoted, the context shows that God will not repent in that specific instance and change His mind about taking the kingdom from Saul. God will not restore Saul to the throne because of Saul's false repentance and blame on the people.

You are skating the issue. One text says he does not repent, the other one says he did. So, in one sense, he does repent, and in another he does not. That is why I do not believe we can really ever debate this particular point with any conclusion being reached, because you mean by God "repenting" the same thing as if you or I repented. I affirm with 1 Samuel 15:29 that God IS NOT LIKE A MAN THAT HE SHOULD REPENT. He does not repent as man repents. Thus this debate really won't get us anywhere.


You continue,“ In narrative texts, often man-like qualities will be given to God, not because He is actually like that, but because it is written as if He is, so that we as humans can understand it. ”

Oh, I see... God is such an inadequate communicator, He needs to tell us somethig about Himself that isn't really true... I'm sorry joel, God is The Most Perfect Communicator in the Universe. When God says something, I take it at face value that it is true. I don't have to "try to figure out what God is really saying," since He describes Himself in ways that are not true...

So you affirm that he is a door? That Christ's physical body is in the Lord's Supper? That he is a physical vine? No, the Lord communicates effectively through the means of anthropopathisms, anthromorphisms, metaphors, similes, hyberole, parables, and other ways.


You continue,“ But then on the examples you cited it would seem that He does. So there is clearly a difference in God's repentance and our repentance. He is not a man, that He should repent like we do. His foreknowledge does not exclude His "repentance." ”

OK joel, if God doesn't really mean what He says, what does it mean when God says He repents, or has a change of mind?


In the words of John Piper, "...his repentance is an expression of a resolve or an attitude that is fitting in view of new circumstances That God is ignorant of what will call for that new resolve or attitude is not necessarily implied in the change." In the example of Saul, Piper says very well, "So the repentance over Saul means not that he did not know what Saul would be like, but that he disapproves of what Saul has become and that he feels sorrow at this evil in his anointed king and that he looks back on his making him king with the same sorrow that he experienced at that moment when he made him king, foreknowing all the sorrow that would come.
For God to say, 'I feel sorrow that I made Saul king,' is not the same as saying, 'I would not make him king if I had to do over knowing what I know now.' God is able to feel sorrow for an act that he does in view of foreknown evil and pain, and yet go ahead and will do to do it for wise reasons. And so later when he looks back on the act he can feel the sorrow for the act that was leading to the sad conditions, such as Saul's disobedience."

Joel

[joelkaki]

Oh, and another thing, Acts9, you never answered my refutation of your view on Romans 11 in post #19 on this thread.

Joel

[PuritanD]

Joel,

I could not answer any better than you did:thumb:

I can't wait to see the response to this

[joelkaki]

Thanks, PuritanD.

Joel

[Act9_12Out]

Joel,

doogie made this statement:

Also, let's read Joshua 3:10

"Jos 3:10 - And Joshua said, By this you shall know the living God is among you, and that He will WITHOUT FAIL drive out from before you the Canaanites and the Hittites and the Hivites and the Perizittes and the Girga****es and the Amorites and the Jebusites. "

This never happened! Does this make the Bible errant and fallible? By my view, no. By yours, most definitely. This verse says that God will without fail drive out those nations, yet it never happened. How can God remain truthful in this verse if He knows with 100% certainty that it will never happen?

You asked,



Please provide the verse that says it did not happen. I do not remember the exact situation, and yes I did go back quickly and look at the context.

Well, here it is....

Exodus 33:2 - "And I will send My Angel before you, and I will drive out the Canaanite and the Amorite and the Hittite and the Perrizite and the Hittite and the Jebusite.

Exodus 34:11,24 - Observe what I command you this day. Behold, I am driving out from before you the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Hittite and the Perrizite and the Hivite and the Jebusite.
24 For I will cast out the nations before you and enlarge your borders; neither will any man covet your land when you go up to appear before the LORD your God three times in the year.

Jos 1:4-5 From the wilderness and this Lebanon as far as the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, and to the Great Sea toward the going down of the sun, shall be your territory.
5 No man shall be able to stand before you all the days of your life; as I was with Moses, so shall I be with you. I will not leave you nor forsake you.

Jos 3:10 - And Joshua said, By this you shall know the living God is among you, and that He will WITHOUT FAIL drive out from before you the Canaanites and the Hittites and the Hivites and the Perizittes and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Jebusites.

Joel, God said that He would drive all these nations out. In the case of Joshua 3:10, God will without fail drive out all of those ites. But later we see these passages...

Jos 15:63 - As for the Jebusites, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them out; but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Jerusalem to this day.

Jos 16:10 - And they did not drive out the Canaanites who dwelt in Gezer; but the Canaanites dwell among the Ephraimites to this day and have become forced laborers.

Judges 2:1-3 - Then the Angel of the LORD came up from Gigal to Bochim, and said, "I led you up from Egypt and brought you to the land of which I swore to your fathers; and I said, "I will never break My covenant with you.
2 And you shall make no covenant with the inhabitants of this land; you shall tear down their altars." But you have not obeyed my voice. Why have you done this?
3 Therefore I also said, "I will not drive them out before you; but they shall be thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare to you."

*Notice Joel, God responded to the people's actions. God asked, "Why have you done this?" Didn't God already know? This fits perfectly with the way God says He will deal with individuals & nations in Jer 18 and Eze 18.

Judges 2:19-22 - And it came to pass, when the judge was dead, that they reverted and behaved more corruptly than their fathers, by following other gods, to serve them and bow down to them. They did not cease from their own doings nor from their stubborn way.
20 Then the anger of the LORD was hot against Israel, and He said, "Because this nation has transgressed My covenant which I commanded their fathers, and has not heeded My voice,
21 I will no longer drive out before them any of the nations which Joshua left when he died,
22 so that through them I might test Israel, whether they will keep the ways of the LORD, to walk in them as their fathers kept them, or not."

*Now Joel, we see more of the same here. Another question... If God already knows how the people will respond, why does He need to test them?

Judges 3:1-6 - Now these are the nations which the LORD left, that He might test Israel by them, that is, all who had not known any wars in Canaan
2 (this was only so that the generations of the children of Israel might be taught to know war, at least those who had not formerly known it),
3 namely, five lords of the Philistines, and all the Cannanites, the Sidonians, and the Hivites who dwelt in Mount Lebanon, from Mount Baal Hermon to the entrance of Hamath.
4 And they were left, that He might test Israel by them, to know whether they would obey the commandments of the LORD, which He had commanded their fathers by the hand of Moses.
5 Thus the children of Israel dwelt among the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites.
6 And they their daughters to be their wives, and gave their daughters to their sons; and they served their gods.

*Let's re-read verse 4 here Joel...
4 And they were left, that He might test Israel by them, to know whether they would obey the commandments of the LORD, which He had commanded their fathers by the hand of Moses.

Again, why does God need to test them? Scripture says "to know whether they would obey the commandments of the LORD." Didn't God already know?

--Jeremy

[Act9_12Out]

Joel,

You said,

In terms of simple foreknowledge, because the knowledge is based on the choice. However, I don't believe I have ever said that we have "true free choice" at least in the sense you mean it.
I can know someone is going to do something, yet that does not mean that they did not freely choose what they would do.

How do you "know" what someone is going to do? Is it because you may know the person so well that you have a "pretty good" knowledge of what they will do, or do you know for sure? If the latter, does the person have any other choice to do other than what you know? If not, then there is no real "choice." You continue,

I agree that there was no explicitly stated condition. But God had an implied condition in his threat. That implied condition was obviously repentance. The threat was very real. Consider this scenario:
You owe me a certain amount of money. You have not paid that amount on time. However, you tell someone that you are coming that very day to pay me, and that person, unbeknownst to you, tells me what you told him before you come to pay me. Now, if I were to call you and say, "If you do not pay me the money, I am going to sue you," then that threat would be real, would it not? I knew you were going to pay me, but yet my threat was still real.
Obviously this illustration isn't the best (they almost never fit exactly), but hopefully it gets the point across.

From your point of view, you already "knew" that I would pay you. I have no choice to do anything but pay you. Since I will without fail pay you, then no, the threat is not real. If I do have the choice not to pay, and you do intend to sue me if I do not pay, then the threat is real. I believe that God would have destroyed them if they did not repent. They had a choice. Again, this is how God tells us He works with nations / individuals who are evil, and then freely repent (Jer 18, Eze 18). You continue,

Another point about Jonah and Nineveh:
God knew (actually he predestined that they would, but we can leave it on the level of simple foreknowledge for the purposes of this debate if you want) that they would repent at the preaching of Jonah, who proclaimed their destruction. Thus he sent Jonah to preach to them the threat, so that they would repent.

I find it interesting that you quote Matt 12:41 here. Hindsight is always 20/20. Why can Matthew make this statement? Because he already knew the people repented. This in no way implies that God already knew they would repent... You continue,

The predestined means was not the actual destruction, but the proclamation of the destruction with the implied condition of repentance.

So essentially you are saying God never really meant He would destroy Nineveh. I disagree... If the people would have rejected God, then they most definitely would have been destroyed. You continue,

You are skating the issue. One text says he does not repent, the other one says he did. So, in one sense, he does repent, and in another he does not.

In this context, why does God repent and not repent? This is the heart of the issue. I would like to hear your reasoning as to why God repents / does not repent. More on this in another post I'm sure... You continue,

That is why I do not believe we can really ever debate this particular point with any conclusion being reached, because you mean by God "repenting" the same thing as if you or I repented.

Now you are "skating the issue." I never said God repents of sin, in the way that a man does. What is repentance? A change of heart or mind. Look up the Hebrew word nacham to see that this is exactly what it means. In this context, God "changed His mind" about Saul being king. In verse 29, God will not "change His mind" about taking the throne from Saul. Saul has a false repentance and wants God to restore him to the throne. Samuel tells Saul that the Lord has taken the throne, and will not "change His mind" and give Saul the throne again. You continue,

I affirm with 1 Samuel 15:29 that God IS NOT LIKE A MAN THAT HE SHOULD REPENT. He does not repent as man repents. Thus this debate really won't get us anywhere.

No, but you must deal with God changing his mind and not changing His mind in this context... You continue,

So you affirm that he is a door? That Christ's physical body is in the Lord's Supper? That he is a physical vine? No, the Lord communicates effectively through the means of anthropopathisms, anthromorphisms, metaphors, similes, hyberole, parables, and other ways.

Please go back and address the definitions of anthropomorphism and anthropopathism as stated above. God being a door, hen, etc... is not germaine to this discussion. I agree that God speaks using examples, but this in no way negates the fact that He changes His mind. You continue,

In the words of John Piper, "...his repentance is an expression of a resolve or an attitude that is fitting in view of new circumstances That God is ignorant of what will call for that new resolve or attitude is not necessarily implied in the change." In the example of Saul, Piper says very well, "So the repentance over Saul means not that he did not know what Saul would be like, but that he disapproves of what Saul has become and that he feels sorrow at this evil in his anointed king and that he looks back on his making him king with the same sorrow that he experienced at that moment when he made him king, foreknowing all the sorrow that would come.

What Piper fails to address is the fact that God is the one who chose Saul to be king. Why would God chose Saul to be king if as Piper says, "So the repentance over Saul means not that he did not know what Saul would be like, but that he disapproves of what Saul has become and that he feels sorrow at this evil in his anointed king and that he looks back on his making him king with the same sorrow that he experienced at that moment when he made him king, foreknowing all the sorrow that would come." This is irrational. Piper says God made Saul king, and was grieved when He made him king, even before he ever disobeyed? Unbelievable... Piper continues,

For God to say, 'I feel sorrow that I made Saul king,' is not the same as saying, 'I would not make him king if I had to do over knowing what I know now.' God is able to feel sorrow for an act that he does in view of foreknown evil and pain, and yet go ahead and will do to do it for wise reasons. And so later when he looks back on the act he can feel the sorrow for the act that was leading to the sad conditions, such as Saul's disobedience."

Piper does some great verbal gymnastics here, and still cannot yank the culpability of God's "bad foreknown choice" out of God's hands. The fact is, God chose Saul to be king. Saul had freewill. Saul disobeyed God in 1 Samuel 15 and did not do as he was instructed. God responded to Saul's disobedience and took the throne from him. If Saul would have been truly repentant, God would have restored him to the throne. King Manessah is a great example of this...

--Jeremy

[Act9_12Out]

joel,

I just posted a response to Romans 11, post #19... For some reason, TheologyWeb lost it! :bawling:

I will repost it when I have more time... :frustrated:

--Jeremy

[joelkaki]

Joel,

doogie made this statement:

“ Also, let's read Joshua 3:10

"Jos 3:10 - And Joshua said, By this you shall know the living God is among you, and that He will WITHOUT FAIL drive out from before you the Canaanites and the Hittites and the Hivites and the Perizittes and the Girga****es and the Amorites and the Jebusites. "

This never happened! Does this make the Bible errant and fallible? By my view, no. By yours, most definitely. This verse says that God will without fail drive out those nations, yet it never happened. How can God remain truthful in this verse if He knows with 100% certainty that it will never happen? ”



You asked,

“

Please provide the verse that says it did not happen. I do not remember the exact situation, and yes I did go back quickly and look at the context. ”



Well, here it is....

Exodus 33:2 - "And I will send My Angel before you, and I will drive out the Canaanite and the Amorite and the Hittite and the Perrizite and the Hittite and the Jebusite.

Exodus 34:11,24 - Observe what I command you this day. Behold, I am driving out from before you the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Hittite and the Perrizite and the Hivite and the Jebusite.
24 For I will cast out the nations before you and enlarge your borders; neither will any man covet your land when you go up to appear before the LORD your God three times in the year.

Jos 1:4-5 From the wilderness and this Lebanon as far as the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, and to the Great Sea toward the going down of the sun, shall be your territory.
5 No man shall be able to stand before you all the days of your life; as I was with Moses, so shall I be with you. I will not leave you nor forsake you.

Jos 3:10 - And Joshua said, By this you shall know the living God is among you, and that He will WITHOUT FAIL drive out from before you the Canaanites and the Hittites and the Hivites and the Perizittes and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Jebusites.

Joel, God said that He would drive all these nations out. In the case of Joshua 3:10, God will without fail drive out all of those ites. But later we see these passages...

Jos 15:63 - As for the Jebusites, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them out; but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Jerusalem to this day.

Jos 16:10 - And they did not drive out the Canaanites who dwelt in Gezer; but the Canaanites dwell among the Ephraimites to this day and have become forced laborers.

Judges 2:1-3 - Then the Angel of the LORD came up from Gigal to Bochim, and said, "I led you up from Egypt and brought you to the land of which I swore to your fathers; and I said, "I will never break My covenant with you.
2 And you shall make no covenant with the inhabitants of this land; you shall tear down their altars." But you have not obeyed my voice. Why have you done this?
3 Therefore I also said, "I will not drive them out before you; but they shall be thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare to you."

*Notice Joel, God responded to the people's actions. God asked, "Why have you done this?" Didn't God already know? This fits perfectly with the way God says He will deal with individuals & nations in Jer 18 and Eze 18.

My view on this would be the same as my view on Nineveh. There was the implied condition that they must obey his commands. They did not, thus God did not drive the people out.


Judges 2:19-22 - And it came to pass, when the judge was dead, that they reverted and behaved more corruptly than their fathers, by following other gods, to serve them and bow down to them. They did not cease from their own doings nor from their stubborn way.
20 Then the anger of the LORD was hot against Israel, and He said, "Because this nation has transgressed My covenant which I commanded their fathers, and has not heeded My voice,
21 I will no longer drive out before them any of the nations which Joshua left when he died,
22 so that through them I might test Israel, whether they will keep the ways of the LORD, to walk in them as their fathers kept them, or not."

*Now Joel, we see more of the same here. Another question... If God already knows how the people will respond, why does He need to test them?

Testing is also for our benefit. It strengthens us. Trials can draw us closer to God. So testing is for our benefit.


Judges 3:1-6 - Now these are the nations which the LORD left, that He might test Israel by them, that is, all who had not known any wars in Canaan
2 (this was only so that the generations of the children of Israel might be taught to know war, at least those who had not formerly known it),
3 namely, five lords of the Philistines, and all the Cannanites, the Sidonians, and the Hivites who dwelt in Mount Lebanon, from Mount Baal Hermon to the entrance of Hamath.
4 And they were left, that He might test Israel by them, to know whether they would obey the commandments of the LORD, which He had commanded their fathers by the hand of Moses.
5 Thus the children of Israel dwelt among the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites.
6 And they their daughters to be their wives, and gave their daughters to their sons; and they served their gods.

*Let's re-read verse 4 here Joel...
4 And they were left, that He might test Israel by them, to know whether they would obey the commandments of the LORD, which He had commanded their fathers by the hand of Moses.

Again, why does God need to test them? Scripture says "to know whether they would obey the commandments of the LORD." Didn't God already know?

--Jeremy

Yes, God already knew. But what God knows must also take place in history, thus he would know that they would obey the commandments. He would know experientally.
This verse causes much more difficulty for you than for me. You say he did not know whether they would obey God's commandments or not. If he did not, and then later knew that they would obey, then He learned. My God does not learn. He is omniscient. He already knows.


Joel

[yxboom]

Acts 9,

Please don't post using RED as stated in the Decorum it is the color used for Moderator notices as to avoid confusion. Thanks.

[joelkaki]

Joel,

You said,

“ In terms of simple foreknowledge, because the knowledge is based on the choice. However, I don't believe I have ever said that we have "true free choice" at least in the sense you mean it.
I can know someone is going to do something, yet that does not mean that they did not freely choose what they would do. ”

How do you "know" what someone is going to do?

I am not saying that I necessarily can know for certain--I'm just human. But if I didm it would not mean they did not freely choose it.


Is it because you may know the person so well that you have a "pretty good" knowledge of what they will do, or do you know for sure? If the latter, does the person have any other choice to do other than what you know?

He has the choice to do so, yet he will freely choose what I knew.


If not, then there is no real "choice."

I disagree. He would freely choose what he would do.

You continue,

“ I agree that there was no explicitly stated condition. But God had an implied condition in his threat. That implied condition was obviously repentance. The threat was very real. Consider this scenario:
You owe me a certain amount of money. You have not paid that amount on time. However, you tell someone that you are coming that very day to pay me, and that person, unbeknownst to you, tells me what you told him before you come to pay me. Now, if I were to call you and say, "If you do not pay me the money, I am going to sue you," then that threat would be real, would it not? I knew you were going to pay me, but yet my threat was still real.
Obviously this illustration isn't the best (they almost never fit exactly), but hopefully it gets the point across. ”

From your point of view, you already "knew" that I would pay you. I have no choice to do anything but pay you.

You have the choice, but you will choose what I knew.


Since I will without fail pay you, then no, the threat is not real.

The threat is most certainly real. I said, "If you do not pay me the money, I am going to sue you." That is a very real threat. If you don't pay me, I will sue you (not in real life maybe, but for the scenario :smile: ). The threat is real. Now obviously my analogy breaks down at this point, because the way I knew what you would do is from someone telling me. God isn't like me. He knew, and yet they would not have repented without the divinely ordained proclamation of Jonah.


If I do have the choice not to pay, and you do intend to sue me if I do not pay, then the threat is real. I believe that God would have destroyed them if they did not repent. They had a choice. Again, this is how God tells us He works with nations / individuals who are evil, and then freely repent (Jer 18, Eze 18).

I believe he would have destroyed them if they had not repented. Yet they repented according to his plan, and thus, according to his plan, he did not destroy them.


You continue,

“ Another point about Jonah and Nineveh:
God knew (actually he pr