God Chose Saul to Fail?

[Act9_12Out]

In light of some other threads here, I would like to show an example of how God deals with His creation. God has given man the gift of contrary choice, and responds accordingly. If a man is evil, and then repents, then God will repent of the harm He said He would do. If a man is righteous, turns away and commits evil, then God will repent of the blessings He said He would bestow upon them (Jer 18, Eze 18). I would like to open with an example of how God deals with man and shows us His true character. God chooses Saul to be king, and then when Saul disobeys, God takes the throne from Saul repents concerning making Saul king. Let's read it...

God "chose" Saul to be king over Israel.

1 Samuel 10:19-24 (The New King James Version)
10:19 But you have today rejected your God, who Himself saved you from all your adversities and your tribulations; and you have said to Him, 'No, set a king over us!' Now therefore, present yourselves before the Lord by your tribes and by your clans."
10:20 And when Samuel had caused all the tribes of Israel to come near, the tribe of Benjamin was chosen.
10:21 When he had caused the tribe of Benjamin to come near by their families, the family of Matri was chosen. And Saul the son of Kish was chosen. But when they sought him, he could not be found.
10:22 Therefore they inquired of the Lord further, "Has the man come here yet?" And the Lord answered, "There he is, hidden among the equipment."
10:23 So they ran and brought him from there; and when he stood among the people, he was taller than any of the people from his shoulders upward.
10:24 And Samuel said to all the people, "Do you see him whom the Lord has chosen, that there is no one like him among all the people?" So all the people shouted and said, "Long live the king!"

You see, God chose Saul to be king over Israel. In the 15th chapter, God asks Saul to "utterly destroy" the Amalekites. Saul disobeys God and God "changes His mind" (repents) about Saul being king. Let's read it,

1 Samuel 15:1-35 (The New King James Version)
15:1 Samuel also said to Saul, "The Lord sent me to anoint you king over His people, over Israel. Now therefore, heed the voice of the words of the Lord.
15:2 Thus says the Lord of hosts: 'I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he ambushed him on the way when he came up from Egypt.
15:3 Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.' "
15:4 So Saul gathered the people together and numbered them in Telaim, two hundred thousand foot soldiers and ten thousand men of Judah.
15:5 And Saul came to a city of Amalek, and lay in wait in the valley.
15:6 Then Saul said to the Kenites, "Go, depart, get down from among the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them. For you showed kindness to all the children of Israel when they came up out of Egypt." So the Kenites departed from among the Amalekites.
15:7 And Saul attacked the Amalekites, from Havilah all the way to Shur, which is east of Egypt.
15:8 He also took Agag king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword.
15:9 But Saul and the people spared Agag and the best of the sheep, the oxen, the fatlings, the lambs, and all that was good, and WERE UNWILLING TO UTTERLY DESTROY THEM. But everything despised and worthless, that they utterly destroyed.
15:10 Now the word of the Lord came to Samuel, saying,
15:11 "I greatly regret ***(NACHAM - REPENT, CHANGE OF MIND) 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.

God makes the decision to take the throne from Saul. He changes His mind about the king that He Himself chose! Now, how does Saul respond to Samuel when Samuel breaks the news to him? Let's read what happens next!

15:12 So when Samuel rose early in the morning to meet Saul, it was told Samuel, saying, "Saul went to Carmel, and indeed, he set up a monument for himself; and he has gone on around, passed by, and gone down to Gilgal."
15:13 Then Samuel went to Saul, and Saul said to him, "Blessed are you of the Lord! I have performed the commandment of the Lord."
15:14 But Samuel said, "What then is this bleating of the sheep in my ears, and the lowing of the oxen which I hear?"
15:15 And Saul said, "They have brought them from the Amalekites; for the people spared the best of the sheep and the oxen, to sacrifice to the Lord your God; and the rest we have utterly destroyed."
15:16 Then Samuel said to Saul, "Be quiet! And I will tell you what the Lord said to me last night." And he said to him, "Speak on."
15:17 So Samuel said, "When you were little in your own eyes, were you not head of the tribes of Israel? And did not the Lord anoint you king over Israel?
15:18 Now the Lord sent you on a mission, and said, 'Go, and utterly destroy the sinners, the Amalekites, and fight against them until they are consumed.'
15:19 Why then did you NOT OBEY the voice of the Lord? Why did you swoop down on the spoil, and do evil in the sight of the Lord?"
15:20 And Saul said to Samuel, "But I have obeyed the voice of the Lord, and gone on the mission on which the Lord sent me, and brought back Agag king of Amalek; I have utterly destroyed the Amalekites.

Saul realizes that he is in trouble and tries to squirm his way out of it. He says, "I did what God told me to do!" He lies right to Samuel's face! Then he tries to blame the people for his disobedience! Let's read it!

15:21 But the people took of the plunder, sheep and oxen, the best of the things which should have been utterly destroyed, to sacrifice to the Lord your God in Gilgal."
15:22 So Samuel said: "Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, As in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, And to heed than the fat of rams.
15:23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, And stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, He also has rejected you from being king."

Here it is! God has changed his mind about Saul being king. He takes the kingdom from Saul! Let's see what happens next!

15:24 Then Saul said to Samuel, "I have sinned, for I have transgressed the commandment of the Lord and your words, because I feared the people and obeyed their voice.

Saul lies to Samuel's face again! He has a false repentance and tries to blame his sin "on the people whom he feared!" The king over Israel was afraid of the people? Baloney! Saul is a liar, and God takes the throne from him. Let's keep reading...

15:25 Now therefore, please pardon my sin, and return with me, that I may worship the Lord."
15:26 But Samuel said to Saul, "I will not return with you, for YOU HAVE REJECTED THE WORD OF THE LORD, and THE LORD HAS REJECTED YOU FROM BEING KING OVER ISRAEL."

Saul has a false repentance and begs the Lord to restore the kingdom to him. Will God change His mind about this decision? Let's see if God changes His mind and restores Saul to the throne.

15:27 And as Samuel turned around to go away, Saul seized the edge of his robe, and it tore.
15:28 So Samuel said to him, "The Lord has torn the kingdom of Israel from you today, and has given it to a neighbor of yours, who is better than you.
15:29 And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor relent" ***(NACHAM - REPENT, CHANGE OF MIND). For He is not a man, that He should relent ***(NACHAM - REPENT, CHANGE OF MIND).

Some say that verse 29 shows that God never repents. In fact, this same passage shows that He does repent (vv. 11, 35). It's not that God never repents, it's that God will not change His mind in this specific instance. God will not change His mind about taking the kingdom from Saul. He made His decision and will stick with it. Perhaps, if Saul would've been truly repentant, then God would've restored Saul to the throne (King Manessah is a great example!). He took the throne from Saul, and would not return it to him. Let's finish our story...

15:30 Then he said, "I have sinned; yet honor me now, please, before the elders of my people and before Israel, and return with me, that I may worship the Lord your God."
15:31 So Samuel turned back after Saul, and Saul worshiped the Lord.
15:32 Then Samuel said, "Bring Agag king of the Amalekites here to me." So Agag came to him cautiously. And Agag said, "Surely the bitterness of death is past."
15:33 But Samuel said, "As your sword has made women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women." And Samuel hacked Agag in pieces before the Lord in Gilgal.
***Samuel did what Saul should've done!
15:34 Then Samuel went to Ramah, and Saul went up to his house at Gibeah of Saul.
15:35 And Samuel went no more to see Saul until the day of his death. Nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul, and the Lord regretted ***(NACHAM - REPENT, CHANGE OF MIND) that He had made Saul king over Israel.

God changed His mind and was even grieved that He set us Saul as king over Israel. If Saul would've obeyed God, he would've remained king. Could the calvinists here please explain why God, who supposedly knows all the future, chose Saul to be king. Did He know Saul would disobey? Did He know He would take the throne from Saul? Did God predestine all these actions? I think not! God chose Saul, and Saul freely disobeyed God. If Saul would've been truly repentant, God would've restored him to the throne.

In conclusion, God shows us that He is consistent in His nature. God blesses those who turn from their sin, and He condemns those who turn to evil. God does not predestine their actions, but rather responds to their free will choices.

In Christ, --Jeremy Finkenbinder

[Blake Reas]

Is this supposed to cause problems for a Calvinist or traditional Arminian?
As a Calvinist I distinguish between God's Covenant Control, Authority and Covenant Presence. Control and Authority deal with his providence and eternal decree his Covenant Presence is his revealed will where he interacts with humans. So I agree God acts in history and am a 5 pointer. Also the repentance and grieving are just as Anthropomorphic as the ones that says he doesn't repent.
It also doesn't follow that because God has ordained something and knows what will happen that he will not feel anything such as grief. But should we take that as grief as we experience? I surely hope not.

By His Grace For His Glory,
Blake

[Act9_12Out]

Blake,

You ask,

Is this supposed to cause problems for a Calvinist or traditional Arminian?

It's not supposed to, it does... You continue,

As a Calvinist I distinguish between God's Covenant Control, Authority and Covenant Presence. Control and Authority deal with his providence and eternal decree his Covenant Presence is his revealed will where he interacts with humans.

And where is this idea found in the Bible? It's not... You continue,

So I agree God acts in history and am a 5 pointer.

What do you mean "God acts in history?" As stated above, God responds to man's free will actions. Your theological position forces you to say that God predestined men to do evil, and then somehow take the culpability from God. The Bible teaches that God has given man free will, and if a man chooses to follow God, God blesses man. If a righteous man turns away and commits evil, God punishes man. God responds to our free will actions (Jer 18, Eze 18). Please address this fact. You continue,

Also the repentance and grieving are just as Anthropomorphic as the ones that says he doesn't repent.

I will ask this question again... When God said He repented that He set Saul as king over Israel, what did He mean, if He didn't really mean He repented? It's quite easy to answer God's repentance in the OT by saying, "Oh, that's an anthropopathism / anthropomorphism." But the true question is Blake, "What is God really saying then?" What idea is He trying to communicate if He really doesn't repent? To be honest, you are the first person I've ever heard say that God "not repenting" is also anthropomorphic. That idea is illogical in itself... You continue,

It also doesn't follow that because God has ordained something and knows what will happen that he will not feel anything such as grief. But should we take that as grief as we experience? I surely hope not.

This is also illogical. You suggest that God was responsible for Saul's disobedience, and therefore predestined Himself to be grieved over the choice that He made? You bet God is truly grieved. God is the best example we have to show how to be a loving husband, father, etc... If you say that God's grief is somehow different than ours, then you must also say God does not love us the way He wants us to love our own children. I disagree. I praise God that He shows me how He loves His children. I can "feel" the passage as it relates to my own children. God is an emotional God who desires that we love Him emotionally as well.

Hosea 11
11:1
"When Israel was a child, I loved him, And out of Egypt I called My son.
11:2
As they called them, So they went from them; They sacrificed to the Baals, And burned incense to carved images.
11:3
"I taught Ephraim to walk, Taking them by their arms; But they did not know that I healed them.
11:4
I drew them with gentle cords, With bands of love, And I was to them as those who take the yoke from their neck. I stooped and fed them.

From your above quote Blake, God doesn't really love His children the way that we love our children. This "love" must be anthropomorphic as well. If His grief is anthropomorphic, then why isn't His love?

In closing, I would ask that you reply to specifics of my opening post. If there is a problem with my interpretation of 1 Samuel 15, please tell me where my position is flawed. Please tell me what God really meant when He repented, was grieved, was sorry, etc... Please tell me if you also believe God's love is anthropomorphic.

--Jeremy

[yxboom]

1 Samuel 2:27 And there came a man of God to Eli and said to him, "Thus the LORD has said, 'Did I indeed reveal myself to the house of your father when they were in Egypt subject to the house of Pharaoh? 28 Did I choose him out of all the tribes of Israel to be my priest, to go up to my altar, to burn incense, to wear an ephod before me? I gave to the house of your father all my offerings by fire from the people of Israel. 29 Why then do you scorn my sacrifices and my offerings that I commanded, and honor your sons above me by fattening yourselves on the choicest parts of every offering of my people Israel?' 30 Therefore the LORD the God of Israel declares: 'I promised that your house and the house of your father should go in and out before me forever,' but now the LORD declares: 'Far be it from me, for those who honor me I will honor, and those who despise me shall be lightly esteemed. 31 Behold, the days are coming when I will cut off your strength and the strength of your father's house, so that there will not be an old man in your house. 32 Then in distress you will look with envious eye on all the prosperity that shall be bestowed on Israel, and there shall not be an old man in your house forever. 33 The only one of you whom I shall not cut off from my altar shall be spared to weep his eyes out to grieve his heart, and all the descendants of your house shall die by the sword of men. 34 And this that shall come upon your two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, shall be the sign to you: both of them shall die on the same day.

[Act9_12Out]

Big *BUMP* for Blake...

I guess no other calvinists have any comments on this?

[Blake Reas]

04-09-2003 @ 06:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=60447#post60447)
Act9_12Out:

Big *BUMP* for Blake...

I guess no other calvinists have any comments on this?

Sorry that I have not been able to get back with you guys. I have been out of town. Anyway here is my response which you will probably cry and whine about and scream foul ball. Anyway here goes:

First let's define immutability since this is what we are dealing with in the "repentance" passages:
The divine immutability should not be understood as implying immobility, as if there is no movement in God... The Bible teaches us that God enters into manifold relations with man and, as it were lives their life with them. THere is change round about Him, change in relations of men to Him, but there is no change in his Being, His attributes, His purpose, His motives of actions, or His promises.
Now that we have laid the foundational definition there is no way you or anyother Open Theist can misrepresent the strand of Traditional Theology I am espousing. I do not believe in an Unmoved mover such as Aristotle dreamed up I believe in the God of Biblical Revelation who is the living breathing God who is Sovereign Lord over History. When the Confessions of faith refer to a God with out Passions it means bodily passions such as hunger or sex drive etc. The Reformed method denies that God has body parts or Arbitrary passions.
While God is Immutible in the Reformed since He is Dynamic in His Immutability. He is portrayed in scripture as having deep interpersonal relationships with his creatures, loving them (not in the arbitrary passionate human sense) , He also cares for His creatures and their happiness.

This leads to Impassibility which basically means that the creature cannot inflict suffering , pain, or any sort of distress upon him or against his will. I will quote J.I. Packer so that everyone can get an Idea of what I am talking about. This is so that you do not misrepresent!
Insofar as God enters into experience of that kind, it is by empathy for his creatures and according to his own deliberate descision, not as his creatures' victim... The thought of God as apathetos fre from all pathos, characterized always by apatheia , represents no single biblical term, but was introduced into Christian theology in the second century: what was it supposed to mean? The face of the creation; not insensitivity and indifference to the distresses of a fallen world; not inability or unwillingness to empathize with himan pain and grief; byt simply that God's expereinces do not come upon him as ours come upon us, for his are foreknown, willed and chosen by himself, and are not involuntary suprises forced on him from outside, apart from his own decision , in the way that ours regularly are. In other words, he is never in reality the victim whom man makes suffer; even the son on his cross... was suffering by his and the Father's conscious foreknowledge and choice, and those who made him suffer, however free and guilty their action, were real if unwittin tools of divine wisdom and agents of the divine plan (Acts 2:23; 1Peter 1:20)

I know that you will probably resort to the Sander's tactic of denying the reading of the last two verses. But I am just giving it a "straight forward reading of the text" so before you go off and hang yourself keep in mind that Greg Boyd agrees the Cross was predetermined.

Now we will get to the objections. I will address your specific "problem text" then I will list some others. The question for those of who want to know what it is quickly is why does the Bible portray YWHW as repenting, relenting, grieving, etc etc. if he has everything planned and foreknows everything? I would like everyone to keep in mind that all through the history of the Church no one has really had problems with these passages. Except maybe the Socinians but that is another story. 3 Passages of the many that OV uses will be examined and I hope that everyone is smart enough to apply this to the rest.

1.Genesis 6:5-7 "The Lord saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and ever inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. The Lord was GRIEVED that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. So the Lord said, "I will wipe mankind , whom I have created, from the face of the earth... for I am grived that I have made them."

2. Exodus 32:9-10 " I have seen these people," the Lord said to Moses, " and they are a stiff-necked people. Now leave me alone that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you a great nation."

3. 1 Samuel 15:11 " I am grieved that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions."

I will reply to this in four ways:

1. Upon a Superficial reading, the biblical text seems to imply taht God did change His plans or His course of action away from a former declared course of action, we should understand that these "new courses" are only his settled immtable certaim responses this is shown as a principle in Jeremiah 18:7-10 In keeping with the principles of conduct respecting himeslf which he himself enunciates in this passage to a change in the human response to his holy laws:

If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me , then I iwll reconsider the good I had intended to do for it
I will quote Dr. Robert L. Reymond in full here
[quote]In other words , God alwyas acts the same way toward moral evil and the same way towared moral good. In His every reaction to men's responses to hiim, the immutable moral fixity of his character is evident. If men and women alter their relations with him, he will always respond in a manner consistent with his immutably holy character. This being true, god does not deem it necessary to attach to every promise he makes or to every prediction of judgement he issues the doncitions for human weal or woe. They are always to be understood as in force, though they may be unstated. They are always operative so that whatever men do, God responds accordingly. And if the biblical interpeter does not realize this - that these conditions are operative even though unstated he may conclude that God has borken a promise or has failed to carry out a predicted judgement.
What doctor Reymond just said should be viewed against the background of the Decretive decree of God. I know that this is a speculative move as even D.A. Carson in his book Divine Sovereigny Human Responsibility admits after discussing the problems with this approach he comes to teh conclusion that the distinction is necessary:
At the same time, we cannot do withoug some distinctions concerning the "wills" of God. Both the Old and New Testaments and the fourth Gospel, not to say elsewhere(Other literature he viewed, DDS, Rabbis etc.) God is sometimes presented as the one who seeks men out, loves the lost world, declares his yearning for their repentance, and the like. This will of God is his disposition; it is not necessarily his decree But precisely how both operate in one soveriegn God is extremely difficult to understand.
In the last sentence as all good reformed theologians will do they will remember that God is outside of our reason to some extent and he admits that it is extrememly hard to understand I would go as far as to say that it is impossible this side of eternity to understand.
So far what we have is that God decrees what he wants to happen before the foundation of the world but in his revealed will God interacts with his creatures.
2. God not only being God of infinite Holiness is also Perfect in his infinite goodness and compassion for his Creatures. It should not really surprise us that God would respond with grief if his creatures where evil or show real dissapointment. It would be weird if he did not do so! God himself declared that he takes not pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather wants them to turn from their ways (Eze. 33:11).
[ I will continue when I have more time] I look to cover the Samuel passages specifically and maybe somemore. It maybe a few days again before I can post.

By His Grace, For HIs Glory
Blake

[Blake Reas]

04-05-2003 @ 06:15 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=55492#post55492)
Act9_12Out:

Blake,

You ask,



[quote]It's not supposed to, it does... You continue,



And where is this idea found in the Bible? It's not... You continue,

Actually it is found in the stucture of the Bible. The book of deuteronomy is made after ancient Suzerian treaties of the ANE I would check out John Frame's Doctrine of God.

What do you mean "God acts in history?" As stated above, God responds to man's free will actions. Your theological position forces you to say that God predestined men to do evil, and then somehow take the culpability from God. The Bible teaches that God has given man free will, and if a man chooses to follow God, God blesses man. If a righteous man turns away and commits evil, God punishes man. God responds to our free will actions (Jer 18, Eze 18). Please address this fact. You continue,
No I do not think the Bible teaches man has free- will I actually believe it teaches the utter depravity of man. So I would say that man is free to do what is not pleasing to God before Christ liberates him. Depravity does not mean that sin is equally distributed through out our faculties so that we are totally incable of good it just means that we are not free to "choose Christ" as you would put it. And no actually Romans 9-11 and other biblical text such as Ephesians 1:1-14(many more) makes me interpret man as predestined. I think that it is your theological position that makes God dependant on man for everything. I also do not think that God responding to his creatures is inconsistent with Two "wills" in God also I allow for a certain degree of Mystery with YHWH where as you don't.



I will ask this question again... When God said He repented that He set Saul as king over Israel, what did He mean, if He didn't really mean He repented? It's quite easy to answer God's repentance in the OT by saying, "Oh, that's an anthropopathism / anthropomorphism." But the true question is Blake, "What is God really saying then?" What idea is He trying to communicate if He really doesn't repent? To be honest, you are the first person I've ever heard say that God "not repenting" is also anthropomorphic. That idea is illogical in itself... You continue,
1. What does God mean by this? Hmmm... well lets see shall we? You said that I was the only person that you had ever heard of who said both positive and negative statments are analogical I will give you one right now and actually I will use in full his discussion of the repentance passages in my own words for shortening of length.
You say that 1 Samuel 15:11 is transparent proof of God changing his mind. "I regret that I made Saul king, for he has turnied back from following me, and has not carried out my commands."(NRSV) While I think that most evangelicals have the right idea in appealing to 15:29 " He who is the Glory of Israel does noe lie or change his mind; for he is not a man, that he should change his mind"[NIV]. The two passages both use the hebrew word naham which translates I regret or change his mind. However if traditional theist suppress the anthropomorphic nature of 15:11 by appealing to 15:29 in order to reify the figure of speech in 15:11. The Open Theist will simply respond that 1 Samuel 15:29 and Numbers 23:19 simply assert that "God will not repent" with referecne " to specific situations in which God refuses to reverse a particular decision." It is true that Samuel declares to Saul that the Lord will not change his mind about tearing the kingdom from Saul. However any fair reading of 1 Samuel 15:29 has to acknowledge that Samuel grounds God's irrevocable purpose in the character of God. Otherwise why characterize God by saying, "He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for his is not a man. that he should change his mind?" Caneday continues, This passage no less protrays God anthropomorphically than does 1 Samuel 15:11. Whether scripture says that God repents or tha tGod does not repent, both are analogical, for both reference humans. God's character remains the same. God's set purpose does not alter. Then, how do the two verses correlate? What changes if God's character and purpose do not? First, the Lord speaks analogically to Samuel to reveal a change from his earlier revelation to anoint SAul over Israel (1 Sam 15:1; 9:16; 10:1). God's revelation concerning Israel's Kingship changed. Second, Samuel clearly recognizes that God has not altered either his character or his eternal purpose when he reminds Saul of hte Lord's character (1 Sam. 15:29). If God had not disclosed to Saumel a change in his revelation concerning Saul then Samuel would have had reason to doubt the Lord's unchangeable character! This is so for Saumel had already announced to Saul the Lord's intention to end his kingship (1 Sam 13:13-14).
Wait Caneday has some more for you..........
If the Lord had not revealed to Saumel a change toward Saul because of his disobedience (1samuel15:1-10) then Samuel would have had grounds for thinking that the Lord's character had truly changed. The biblical narrative or 1 Samuel 15 hardly brings into question the Lord's eternal purpose to raise up Israel's king from the tribe of Judah and not from the tribe of Benjamin (Gen 49:8-12). Rather the narrative analogically discloses how the Lord brought about his prophetic word announced long ago througth Jacob that the Messiah would descend from Judah!




This is also illogical. You suggest that God was responsible for Saul's disobedience, and therefore predestined Himself to be grieved over the choice that He made? You bet God is truly grieved. God is the best example we have to show how to be a loving husband, father, etc... If you say that God's grief is somehow different than ours, then you must also say God does not love us the way He wants us to love our own children. I disagree. I praise God that He shows me how He loves His children. I can "feel" the passage as it relates to my own children. God is an emotional God who desires that we love Him emotionally as well.

Aside from the analogical debate we have gotten into I do not see the problem with God being truly grieved. there are 2 reasons for this 1) God is not like us, I seriously doubt that he feels the same as we do when it depicts him as grieving 2) As I said earlier I do not pretend to put God into a box and diminish him to Human form with Human emotions etc. The fact that we can inflict pain on God in teh Open view is to me repugnant.



From your above quote Blake, God doesn't really love His children the way that we love our children. This "love" must be anthropomorphic as well. If His grief is anthropomorphic, then why isn't His love?

I would say his love is different than ours that is very true. For instance he cannot just stop loving us. Where as a wife can stop loving her Husband. Or a Father and Son and end up hating each other God's love is much different than our arbitrary passions.

In other words if I speak of Socrates having wisdom and then I speak of God having Wisdom do I mean the same thing?

In closing, I would ask that you reply to specifics of my opening post. If there is a problem with my interpretation of 1 Samuel 15, please tell me where my position is flawed. Please tell me what God really meant when He repented, was grieved, was sorry, etc... Please tell me if you also believe God's love is anthropomorphic.
I just did explain everything for you. God bless! Answer my question about Socrates and you will have my answer to the love question!

By His Grace For His(The only true Sovereign Lord over history) Glory,
Blake

[joelkaki]

This is also illogical. You suggest that God was responsible for Saul's disobedience, and therefore predestined Himself to be grieved over the choice that He made? You bet God is truly grieved. God is the best example we have to show how to be a loving husband, father, etc... If you say that God's grief is somehow different than ours, then you must also say God does not love us the way He wants us to love our own children. I disagree. I praise God that He shows me how He loves His children. I can "feel" the passage as it relates to my own children. God is an emotional God who desires that we love Him emotionally as well.


Acts9, that is not illogical at all. God can ordain something to happen that will grieve him. Yet that is always working for his glory and our good.
A father spanks his children, and doing so causes him grief, for he does not like for his children to be in pain, yet he does so (--ordains) for the final good of his children.
So unless you say it is illogical for a father to spank (or punish in some other way) his children, then you cannot say that it is illogical for God to ordain something that grieves him.
So God most certainly could have ordained something which grieves him.

Joel

[doogieduff]

Today @ 08:14 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=62898#post62898)
joelkaki:

Acts9, that is not illogical at all. God can ordain something to happen that will grieve him. Yet that is always working for his glory and our good.
A father spanks his children, and doing so causes him grief, for he does not like for his children to be in pain, yet he does so (--ordains) for the final good of his children.
So unless you say it is illogical for a father to spank (or punish in some other way) his children, then you cannot say that it is illogical for God to ordain something that grieves him.
So God most certainly could have ordained something which grieves him.

Joel

I think you're totally missing the point here. God handpicked Saul to be king. THIS IS HUGE. According to you, God already knew when He HANDPICKED SAUL that He indeed would fail. He already knew that. But then God still grieved when Saul turned out to be a bad king? This does not make sense. Your analogy is terrible and doesn't even come close to what Acts9 is saying. I honestly have never tried to think of an analogy for this, but hopefully Acts9 will come up with a better one. Let's say it's your job to handpick a car for your wife. The dealer tells you that Car A will only run 100 miles exactly before it completely breaks down, never to run again. (God would not change His mind and make Saul king again.) Car B on the other hand would was brand new and would run for probably greater than 100,000 miles. Let's say you chose Car A KNOWING it would fail at exactly 100 miles from now. When you watched the odometer reach 100 miles past point of purchase are you going to grieve that you picked Car A? No way! You knew it would fail. This analogy is also terrible, but truly shows how stupid you would be to pick Car A. (Are you calling God stupid? Or are you saying He got it wrong on purpose?) I'm not even sure about the Hebrew, but I have a sneaky suspiscion that the Hebrew word in 1 Samuel for "grieve" is "nacham." If it indeed was this, then it actually means God repented that He made Saul King. But wait, HE CHOSE HIM TO FAIL RIGHT!?...So how can He truly repent?

[Blake Reas]

Yesterday @ 11:51 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=63420#post63420)
doogieduff:



I think you're totally missing the point here. God handpicked Saul to be king. THIS IS HUGE. According to you, God already knew when He HANDPICKED SAUL that He indeed would fail. He already knew that. But then God still grieved when Saul turned out to be a bad king? This does not make sense. Your analogy is terrible and doesn't even come close to what Acts9 is saying. I honestly have never tried to think of an analogy for this, but hopefully Acts9 will come up with a better one. Let's say it's your job to handpick a car for your wife. The dealer tells you that Car A will only run 100 miles exactly before it completely breaks down, never to run again. (God would not change His mind and make Saul king again.) Car B on the other hand would was brand new and would run for probably greater than 100,000 miles. Let's say you chose Car A KNOWING it would fail at exactly 100 miles from now. When you watched the odometer reach 100 miles past point of purchase are you going to grieve that you picked Car A? No way! You knew it would fail. This analogy is also terrible, but truly shows how stupid you would be to pick Car A. (Are you calling God stupid? Or are you saying He got it wrong on purpose?) I'm not even sure about the Hebrew, but I have a sneaky suspiscion that the Hebrew word in 1 Samuel for "grieve" is "nacham." If it indeed was this, then it actually means God repented that He made Saul King. But wait, HE CHOSE HIM TO FAIL RIGHT!?...So how can He truly repent?

The Hebrew word is Nacham as I think I mentioned in my reply to Acts9. You have fallen into the trap! You have worked from Man to God instead of thinking from God to man. Your analogy falls apart because you expect God to act as we do. I say that God had to accomodate himself for us to understand him. We can not think of God with out his help but you seem to think that God chooses things in the exact same way as we do. You are the one with the bad analogy. Also, maybe you could tell me why no exeget through out the history of the Church has considered the "repentance" passages a problem.

By His Grace For His Glory,
Blake

[doogieduff]

Today @ 06:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=63508#post63508)
Blake Reas:



The Hebrew word is Nacham as I think I mentioned in my reply to Acts9. You have fallen into the trap! You have worked from Man to God instead of thinking from God to man. Your analogy falls apart because you expect God to act as we do. I say that God had to accomodate himself for us to understand him. We can not think of God with out his help but you seem to think that God chooses things in the exact same way as we do. You are the one with the bad analogy. Also, maybe you could tell me why no exeget through out the history of the Church has considered the "repentance" passages a problem.

By His Grace For His Glory,
Blake


Actually I'm not working backwards. God does not repent like man does, but He still repents. That's biblical. And second, I don't work from man to God, I read what's in the Bible. If it says God loves, I think God loves. Am I working backwards here? You must think so. Answer my question instead of skirting around it like you did to Acts9. IS GOD'S LOVE ANTHROPOMORPHIC ALSO? That's why some of the church (including you) has never had a problem with the repent verses, because they claim that they don't mean what they say. What a copout! God created us in His image. Are you going to tell me He can't speak with us so we can understand it? Give me a break! Explain how God created us in His image yet still we can't understand Him. Is God not smart enough to communicate with us? Is that what you are trying to say? How do you define the line of where God is meaning what He says or not? Show me biblically where God claims to "lie" so we can understand Him. I'd love to see it. If you are going to claim that God's feelings, emotions, etc. are anthropomorphic, then stay consistent that ALL His feelings and emotions, etc. are anthropomorphic. I guarantee that you cannot show biblically how to separate when He's honest or not, so you are forced to go one way or another. If indeed He's not honest when He repents, then He's not honest when He says He loves us. It's that simple. Maybe I should doubt Christ's death for me! God really doesn't love me enough to do that. He has no emotions that I can understand. I have never claimed and will never claim to say I've figured out God. I may never figure out God. But you know what? God gave us a sampling of how great He really is in the book we call the Bible. And you want to turn and say parts of it God was merely "joking." Give me break.

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

Was God joking here too? If not, then explain to me how your "anthropomorphic" verses are "Godbreathed", explain to me how your "anthropomorphic" verses are profitable for doctrine, explain to me how your "anthropomorphic" verses can be used for instruction in righteousness! I'm all ears....

[Blake Reas]

Today @ 02:27 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=63541#post63541)
doogieduff:




Actually I'm not working backwards. God does not repent like man does, but He still repents. That's biblical. And second, I don't work from man to God, I read what's in the Bible. If it says God loves, I think God loves. Am I working backwards here? You must think so. Answer my question instead of skirting around it like you did to Acts9. IS GOD'S LOVE ANTHROPOMORPHIC ALSO? That's why some of the church (including you) has never had a problem with the repent verses, because they claim that they don't mean what they say. What a copout! God created us in His image. Are you going to tell me He can't speak with us so we can understand it? Give me a break! Explain how God created us in His image yet still we can't understand Him. Is God not smart enough to communicate with us? Is that what you are trying to say? How do you define the line of where God is meaning what He says or not? Show me biblically where God claims to "lie" so we can understand Him. I'd love to see it. If you are going to claim that God's feelings, emotions, etc. are anthropomorphic, then stay consistent that ALL His feelings and emotions, etc. are anthropomorphic. I guarantee that you cannot show biblically how to separate when He's honest or not, so you are forced to go one way or another. If indeed He's not honest when He repents, then He's not honest when He says He loves us. It's that simple. Maybe I should doubt Christ's death for me! God really doesn't love me enough to do that. He has no emotions that I can understand. I have never claimed and will never claim to say I've figured out God. I may never figure out God. But you know what? God gave us a sampling of how great He really is in the book we call the Bible. And you want to turn and say parts of it God was merely "joking." Give me break.

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

Was God joking here too? If not, then explain to me how your "anthropomorphic" verses are "Godbreathed", explain to me how your "anthropomorphic" verses are profitable for doctrine, explain to me how your "anthropomorphic" verses can be used for instruction in righteousness! I'm all ears....

After reading through what I guess you call an argument. I have established two things about you 1) you are childish since all you can do is say over and over again that your Opponents posisition is ignorant with out giving any evidence to the contrary. 2) I do not think you understand what I am saying at all.

When I say that all language about God is analogical or Anthropomorphic I mean that God reveals himself to us in a veiled way. If He in his greatness where to reveal himself in his Glory we would be killed I think that is Biblical don't you? For instance when God meets Moses on Sinai, when he wrestles with Jacob, and last but not least the Incarnation. You would not take each of these as God truly is in his enter trinitarian life would you? If you do then you claim to know a lot more about God than anyone I have talked to. Another thing that I notice is that you do not pay attention what so ever to the postion of reformed theologians about there being two "wills" in God. As I said before I do not think that we even come close to understanding God here but it is something that we must impose.
I do not need to answer you about the Anthropomorphic nature of the 1 Samuel passages both repentent and nonrepent passages because I already answered them above. Also about God's love I answered that also. I guess you did not understand, I am saying that God is unlike man in his very being. God Loves us with a love that we cannot even begin to comprehend and we must explain it only in our finite concept of Love which is not even a shadow of the intratrinitarian love of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit so again I ask the question do I mean the same thing when I say that Socrates is wise and that God is wise?
Also if the anthropomorphic language of scripture is mandated by God then we should have no problem trusting them. You also need to read some Calvin about the Doctrine of Accomodation in which God descends to make himself known to us as in the Burning Bush and the incarnation and many other places in scripture.
When you speak of "feelings" and "emotions" or Passions or whatever you want to call them I ask this question (assuming you do not believe God has a literal Body) since God does not have a physical body in the sense that we do does he feel all of our experiences in the same way also you must remember that he is perfect which we have no idea what that would be like taht must in some way affect his "feelings","emotions" or whatever else you want to talke about. For a good treatment on the Love of God in a compatibilist sense i would recommend that you read D.A. Carson's "The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God".
On the discussion of how we understand God. I would say that he created us from the dust of the ground and that we share the same Context with the other creatures that he created but I do not go as far as Sander's does and posit a "shared context" between us and God. God is the creator he does not share the same context with us He transcends us our finite depraved minds that have been damaged do to the fall and he must come down to us for we cannot reach up to him in our current state. Passages that speak of divine mystery are Romans 11:33-36 which is the only one I am going to use because it deals with the context of election and God's grace now it may be objected that these passages are not talking about intellectual knowledge but that God transcends us ethically but I ask the question as with Isaiah 55:8 why doesn't God's greatness in one area lead to his greatness above ours in others? There are many more passages but it is late and I am done for now. One last thing I agree that God can be grieved and he can also relent but I do not believe that God repents because he does nothing wrong it appears you have backed yourself into a corner does God sin? He must sin if he Repents maybe you mean "relent" or "grieved". If that is what you meant then there is nothing in consistent with saying that God relents or is grieved as I have shown above but do to you lack of reading skills you did not just quite get it. I agree that God can be grieved by mans wickedness even though he ordains it an knows it will happen. I do not for one minute claim to know how he does this and is not responsible for Evil but to me that is part of hte beauty of the divine mystery. So as usual proponents of you position (not all) have succesfully misrepresented what the other side of the debate says.

Please deal with these passages

Ephesians 1:4-5, 11 also please explain to me what God's will is or when Paul speaks of God revealing his will. As I understand it the God of OV really can have no overarching plan except to anticipate what the next human free action will do. I know that he knows everything that could happen but he is wrong a lot of times no matter how you try to explain it away.

Romans 8:27-29 In the context Paul is talking about about the suffereings of the present time (v.18) he then talks about the universe being subjected to futility then in 8:26 -27 Paul makes the claim tha the works all things to work for good to those whom he loves. Does that mean what appears to be unnecessary torture? I would think so since Paul took his fair share of beatings he never thought that God was twittling his thumbs while this happened it was always according to the "will" of God! I will post more later with more indepth discussion of these passages.

Finally Romans 9-11 I like to discuss this passage since to me it appears blatantly to be speaking of Salvation of individuals and a group not a "thing" called the Church. If you appeal to group election you must remember that the Group is made up of individuals. And the context does not support the thing called the CHurch interpretation.

Jeremiah 51 Thus says the LORD: "Behold, I am going to arouse against Babylon And against the inhabitants of Leb-kamai F578 The F579 spirit R2558 of a destroyer. 2 "I will dispatch foreigners F580 to Babylon that they may winnow R2559 her And may devastate her land; For on every side they will be opposed to her In the day of {her} calamity. 3 "Let not him F582 who bends F583 R2560 his bow bend F583 {it,} Nor F581 let him rise up in his scale-armor; R2561 So do not spare her young men; Devote all her army to destruction. 4 "They will fall down slain F584 in the land of the Chaldeans, And pierced R2562 through in their streets." 5 For neither R2563 Israel nor Judah has been forsaken F585 By his God, the LORD of hosts, Although their land is full R2564 of guilt Before F586 the Holy One of Israel. 6 Flee R2565 from the midst of Babylon, And each of you save his life! Do not be destroyed F587 R2566 in her punishment, F588 For this is the LORD'S R2567 time of vengeance; He is going to render R2568 recompense to her. 7 Babylon has been a golden cup R2569 in the hand of the LORD, Intoxicating all the earth. The nations R2570 have drunk of her wine; Therefore the nations are going R2571 mad. 8 Suddenly Babylon R2572 has fallen and been broken; Wail R2573 over her! Bring R2574 balm F589 for her pain; Perhaps she may be healed. 9 We applied healing to Babylon, but she was not healed; Forsake her and let R2575 us each go to his own country, For her judgment has reached R2576 to heaven And towers F590 up to the very skies. 10 The LORD has brought R2577 about F591 our vindication; Come and let us recount R2578 in Zion The work of the LORD our God! 11 Sharpen R2579 the arrows, fill the quivers! The LORD has aroused the spirit of the kings of the Medes, Because His purpose is against Babylon to destroy it; For it is the vengeance R2580 of the LORD, vengeance for His temple. 12 Lift R2581 up a signal F592 against the walls of Babylon; Post a strong guard, Station sentries, F593 Place men in ambush! For the LORD has both purposed R2582 and performed What He spoke concerning the inhabitants of Babylon. 13 O you who dwell R2583 by many waters, Abundant in treasures, R2584 Your end has come, The measure F594 of your end. F595 R2585 14 The LORD R2586 of hosts has sworn by Himself: "Surely I will fill you with a population F596 like locusts, R2587 And they will cry out with shouts F597 of victory over you." 15 {It is} He R2588 who made the earth by His power, Who established the world by His wisdom, And by His understanding He stretched R2589 out the heavens. 16 When He utters His voice, R2590 {there is} a tumult of waters in the heavens, And He causes the clouds R2591 to ascend from the end of the earth; He makes lightning for the rain And brings forth the wind R2592 from His storehouses. 17 All R2593 mankind is stupid, devoid of knowledge; Every goldsmith is put to shame by his idols, F598 For his molten images are deceitful, R2594 And there is no breath in them. 18 They are worthless, R2595 a work of mockery; In the time of their punishment they will perish. 19 The portion R2596 of Jacob is not like these; For the Maker F599 of all is He, And of the tribe F600 of His inheritance; The LORD R2597 of hosts is His name. 20 {He says,} "You are My war-club, F601 R2598 {My} weapon of war; And with you I shatter R2599 nations, And with you I destroy kingdoms. 21 "With you I shatter R2600 the horse and his rider, And with you I shatter the chariot R2601 and its rider, 22 And with you I shatter man R2602 and woman, And with you I shatter old man and youth, R2603 And with you I shatter young man and virgin, 23 And with you I shatter the shepherd and his flock, And with you I shatter the farmer and his team, And with you I shatter governors and prefects. 24 "But I will repay Babylon and all the inhabitants of Chaldea R2604 for all R2605 their evil that they have done in Zion before your eyes," declares the LORD. 25 "Behold, I R2606 am against you, O R2607 destroying mountain, Who destroys the whole earth," declares the LORD, "And I will stretch out My hand against you, And roll you down from the crags, And I will make you a burnt R2608 out mountain. 26 "They will not take from you {even} a stone for a corner Nor a stone for foundations, But you will be desolate R2609 forever," declares the LORD. 27 Lift R2610 up a signal F602 in the land, Blow a trumpet among the nations! Consecrate the nations against her, Summon against her the kingdoms R2611 of Ararat, R2612 Minni and Ashkenaz; R2613 Appoint a marshal against her, Bring up the horses R2614 like bristly locusts. 28 Consecrate the nations against her, The kings of the Medes, Their F603 governors and all their F603 prefects, F604 And every land of their F605 dominion. 29 So the land R2615 quakes and writhes, For the purposes of the LORD against Babylon stand, To make the land of Babylon A desolation without inhabitants. 30 The mighty men of Babylon have ceased fighting, They stay in the strongholds; Their strength is exhausted, They are becoming {like} women; Their dwelling places are set on fire, The bars of her {gates} are broken. 31 One courier runs to meet another, And one messenger to meet another, To tell the king of Babylon That his city has been captured from end {to end;} 32 The fords also have been seized, And they have burned the marshes with fire, And the men of war are terrified. 33 For thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: "The daughter of Babylon is like a threshing floor At the time it is stamped firm; Yet in a little while the time of harvest will come for her." 34 "Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon has devoured me {and} crushed me, He has set me down {like} an empty vessel; He has swallowed me like a monster, He has filled his stomach with my delicacies; He has washed me away. 35 "May the violence {done} to me and to my flesh be upon Babylon," The inhabitant of Zion will say; And, "May my blood be upon the inhabitants of Chaldea," Jerusalem will say. 36 Therefore thus says the LORD, "Behold, I am going to plead your case And exact full vengeance for you; And I will dry up her sea And make her fountain dry. 37 " Babylon will become a heap {of ruins,} a haunt of jackals, An object of horror and hissing, without inhabitants. 38 "They will roar together like young lions, They will growl like lions' cubs. 39 "When they become heated up, I will serve {them} their banquet And make them drunk, that they may become jubilant And may sleep a perpetual sleep And not wake up," declares the LORD. 40 "I will bring them down like lambs to the slaughter, Like rams together with male goats. 41 "How Sheshakn has been captured, And the praise of the whole earth been seized! How Babylon has become an object of horror among the nations! 42 "The sea has come up over Babylon; She has been engulfed with its tumultuous waves. 43 "Her cities have become an object of horror, A parched land and a desert, A land in which no man lives And through which no son of man passes. 44 " I will punish Bel in Babylon, And I will make what he has swallowed come out of his mouth; And the nations will no longer stream to him. Even the wall of Babylon has fallen down! 45 " Come forth from her midst, My people, And each of you save yourselves From the fierce anger of the LORD. 46 "Now so that your heart does not grow faint, And you are not afraid at the report that {will be} heard in the land-- For the report will come one year, And after that another report in another year, And violence {will be} in the land With ruler against ruler-- 47 Therefore behold, days are coming When I will punish the idols of Babylon; And her whole land will be put to shame And all her slain will fall in her midst. 48 "Then heaven and earth and all that is in them Will shout for joy over Babylon, For the destroyers will come to her from the north," Declares the LORD. 49 Indeed Babylon is to fall {for} the slain of Israel, {As} also for Babylon the slain of all the earth have fallen. 50 You who have escaped the sword, Depart! Do not stay! Remember the LORD from afar, And let Jerusalem come to your mind. 51 We are ashamed because we have heard reproach; Disgrace has covered our faces, For aliens have entered The holy places of the LORD'S house. 52 "Therefore behold, the days are coming," declares the LORD, "When I will punish her idols, And the mortally wounded will groan throughout her land. 53 "Though Babylon should ascend to the heavens, And though she should fortify her lofty stronghold, From Me destroyers will come to her," declares the LORD. 54 The sound of an outcry from Babylon, And of great destruction from the land of the Chaldeans! 55 For the LORD is going to destroy Babylon, And He will make {her} loud noise vanish from her. And their waves will roar like many waters; The tumult of their voices sounds forth. 56 For the destroyer is coming against her, against Babylon, And her mighty men will be captured, Their bows are shattered; For the LORD is a God of recompense, He will fully repay. 57 "I will make her princes and her wise men drunk, Her governors, her prefects and her mighty men, That they may sleep a perpetual sleep and not wake up," Declares the King, whose name is the LORD of hosts. 58 Thus says the LORD of hosts, "The broad wall of Babylon will be completely razed And her high gates will be set on fire; So the peoples will toil for nothing, And the nations become exhausted {only} for fire."
[/quote]

I believe this passage causes problems for Open Theist. 1) even if you say that this is a reference to one event it doesn't matter ebcause God would have had to override the free-decisions that he cherishes so much of some of his creatures.2) This shows a compatibalistic sense in the text notice how God uses Babylon as his hammer or club and then sets his glare upon them to destroy them! I will comment more later!
By His Grace For His Glory,
Blake

[joelkaki]

I think you're totally missing the point here. God handpicked Saul to be king. THIS IS HUGE. According to you, God already knew when He HANDPICKED SAUL that He indeed would fail. He already knew that. But then God still grieved when Saul turned out to be a bad king? This does not make sense. Your analogy is terrible and doesn't even come close to what Acts9 is saying. I honestly have never tried to think of an analogy for this, but hopefully Acts9 will come up with a better one. Let's say it's your job to handpick a car for your wife. The dealer tells you that Car A will only run 100 miles exactly before it completely breaks down, never to run again. (God would not change His mind and make Saul king again.) Car B on the other hand would was brand new and would run for probably greater than 100,000 miles. Let's say you chose Car A KNOWING it would fail at exactly 100 miles from now. When you watched the odometer reach 100 miles past point of purchase are you going to grieve that you picked Car A? No way! You knew it would fail. This analogy is also terrible, but truly shows how stupid you would be to pick Car A. (Are you calling God stupid? Or are you saying He got it wrong on purpose?) I'm not even sure about the Hebrew, but I have a sneaky suspiscion that the Hebrew word in 1 Samuel for "grieve" is "nacham." If it indeed was this, then it actually means God repented that He made Saul King. But wait, HE CHOSE HIM TO FAIL RIGHT!?...So how can He truly repent?

Hey, I know my analogy isn't the best fit in the world. But it does demonstrate that you can ordain something that will grieve you, but will work more fully to your purposes.

Your analogy doesn't work because there would be NO advantage to buying the car that breaks down. It would not work out ultimately for your good or your glory. But God's plan always does work out for his glory and the good of those who love him.

Joel

[Blake Reas]

God does not repent like man does, but He still repents. That's biblical. And second, I don't work from man to God, I read what's in the Bible.

What does it mean when God repents? Here is the short answer for those of you who do not want to read a long drawn out debate. The passages that portray God as relenting are not misleading or false as you claim, for they do communicate something important, namely, that the course of God's actions in history do change, relative to our temporal framework.
Also from my presupposition in which I believe that God is outside of time He must be a being who enters into time to communicate with temporal creatures, so this leads to the conclusion that God's language would have to be condescending to us (analogical). "If-then" statements and other conditionals and temporally tensed language (e.g. "now", "then", "before", "after", yesterday, "tommorow"etc.) serve as a vehnicle to help us understand and relate to God or as Calvin put it God "lisps to us". I am going to anticipate an objection that will probably be raised, "Blake, you still have not answered why God would use this language!" My answer, HOW ELSE WOULD A ATEMPORAL BEING SPEAK TO A TEMPORAL CREATURE? If you can give me a different way in which an atemporal being would deal with us then please present it.

By His Grace For His Glory
Blake

[tizzidale]

My answer, HOW ELSE WOULD A ATEMPORAL BEING SPEAK TO A TEMPORAL CREATURE? If you can give me a different way in which an atemporal being would deal with us then please present it.

If we can describe God's actions in ways that are comprehensible in light of his omnibenovolence and omniscience (as you are maintaining that you are), then why couldn't God?

[Blake Reas]

Today @ 07:33 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=64878#post64878)
tizzidale:



If we can describe God's actions in ways that are comprehensible in light of his omnibenovolence and omniscience (as you are maintaining that you are), then why couldn't God?

That is a real good question I will try and answer the best I can after I get home from Church.

God Bless,
Blake

[mustbenothing]

(Act9_12Out) Could the calvinists here please explain why God, who supposedly knows all the future, chose Saul to be king.

(Me) Of course not. I am in no place to fathom the mind of God. Job certainly teaches us this (Job 40:1-5; 42:1-6), and Paul echoes (Romans 11:33-36).



(Act9_12Out) Did He know Saul would disobey? Did He know He would take the throne from Saul? Did God predestine all these actions?

(Me) Of course (Romans 8:28; Ephesians 1:11; etc.).



(Act9_12Out) I think not! God chose Saul, and Saul freely disobeyed God. If Saul would've been truly repentant, God would've restored him to the throne.

(Me) With the last two sentences, I couldn't agree more. Yet, how does this prove that God didn't know or predestine Saul's disobedience?



(Act9_12Out) In conclusion, God shows us that He is consistent in His nature. God blesses those who turn from their sin, and He condemns those who turn to evil.

(Me) Exactly!



(Act9_12Out) God does not predestine their actions, but rather responds to their free will choices.

(Me) Where did this come up in the text?



(Act9_12Out) You suggest that God was responsible for Saul's disobedience, and therefore predestined Himself to be grieved over the choice that He made?

(Me) He never said that God was responsible for Saul's disobedience. He said that God decreed it. With Paul, I will ask you:

Romans 9:19-21
19 You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?"
20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?"
21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use?



(Act9_12Out) God is an emotional God who desires that we love Him emotionally as well.

(Me) Does your position just boil down to feel-good theology?




(Act9_12Out) From your above quote Blake, God doesn't really love His children the way that we love our children. This "love" must be anthropomorphic as well. If His grief is anthropomorphic, then why isn't His love?

(Me) I find God's love to be analogical to our own, but not identical. God is not just a big creature -- He is the Creator.




(Act9_12Out) In closing, I would ask that you reply to specifics of my opening post. If there is a problem with my interpretation of 1 Samuel 15, please tell me where my position is flawed.

(Me) The flaw is in your conclusions, which have been nowhere argued from the text. The passage talks about God's responsiveness and wrath, and then you conclude that God couldn't know or foreordain the future. Where is predestination or foreknowledge even in view in this passage?



(doogieduff) I think you're totally missing the point here. God handpicked Saul to be king. THIS IS HUGE. According to you, God already knew when He HANDPICKED SAUL that He indeed would fail. He already knew that. But then God still grieved when Saul turned out to be a bad king? This does not make sense. Your analogy is terrible and doesn't even come close to what Acts9 is saying. I honestly have never tried to think of an analogy for this, but hopefully Acts9 will come up with a better one. Let's say it's your job to handpick a car for your wife. The dealer tells you that Car A will only run 100 miles exactly before it completely breaks down, never to run again. (God would not change His mind and make Saul king again.) Car B on the other hand would was brand new and would run for probably greater than 100,000 miles. Let's say you chose Car A KNOWING it would fail at exactly 100 miles from now. When you watched the odometer reach 100 miles past point of purchase are you going to grieve that you picked Car A? No way! You knew it would fail.

(Me) Please stifle the shouting.

This analogy requires that you choose a car that is good as a car. Therefore, by the analogy, Saul would have had to be chosen to be king on the grounds of his merits in being a king. And yet, there is no obvious reason to accept this.

Additionally, consider a father who sends his child to perform a task which he knows the child will fail. He may still grieve with, for, or because of the child, even though he knew that the child would fail.




(doogieduff) This analogy is also terrible, but truly shows how stupid you would be to pick Car A. (Are you calling God stupid? Or are you saying He got it wrong on purpose?)

(Me) No, you're the one who's saying that God is stupid. You and your cronies had to resort to crude insult on your site, and now you've turned here to insult Calvinists. Please deal with facts and argumentation rather than caustic rhetoric.




(doogieduff) I'm not even sure about the Hebrew, but I have a sneaky suspiscion that the Hebrew word in 1 Samuel for "grieve" is "nacham." If it indeed was this, then it actually means God repented that He made Saul King. But wait, HE CHOSE HIM TO FAIL RIGHT!?...So how can He truly repent?

(Me) Using this kind of literalism, perhaps we should take the following text to prove that God is bound in space as well as time:

Genesis 11:7
Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that they may not understand one another's speech.

[Blake Reas]

Yesterday @ 07:33 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=64878#post64878)
tizzidale:



If we can describe God's actions in ways that are comprehensible in light of his omnibenovolence and omniscience (as you are maintaining that you are), then why couldn't God?

The point that I am making is that God does reveal himself in a comprehensible light. You missed the point maybe (I could be mistaken) I am saying that God in fact does reveal himself in a comprehesible light. That is why in the narrative it says that "God is not like a man that he changes his mind" but then earlier and later it says he was grieved.

By His Grace For His Glory,
Blake

[doogieduff]

04-12-2003 @ 12:48 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=63769#post63769)
Blake Reas:

When I say that all language about God is analogical or Anthropomorphic I mean that God reveals himself to us in a veiled way. If He in his greatness where to reveal himself in his Glory we would be killed I think that is Biblical don't you? For instance when God meets Moses on Sinai, when he wrestles with Jacob, and last but not least the Incarnation. You would not take each of these as God truly is in his enter trinitarian life would you? If you do then you claim to know a lot more about God than anyone I have talked to.

I never said God had to reveal Himself "visually" nor did I ever say He needed to reveal Himself fully. All I said was that God told us a little about Himself in the Bible. I'm going to trust that what He tells me about Himself is true. I think He knows Himself best, don't you? Others decide they want to isogete the Bible to fit their beliefs, and come to the conclusion that God was basically lying so that we can understand Him. I guess God isn't "smart" enough to talk to His creation, so He has to fool us by speaking things that are untrue.


Another thing that I notice is that you do not pay attention what so ever to the postion of reformed theologians about there being two "wills" in God. As I said before I do not think that we even come close to understanding God here but it is something that we must impose.

I don't see the relevance here. I believe God has two wills. BOULE (counsel) and THELEMA (desire). So what's your point? If you admit to not coming close to understanding God then you must admit that your beliefs are most likely not correct, because you can't understand God!


I do not need to answer you about the Anthropomorphic nature of the 1 Samuel passages both repentent and nonrepent passages because I already answered them above. Also about God's love I answered that also. I guess you did not understand, I am saying that God is unlike man in his very being. God Loves us with a love that we cannot even begin to comprehend and we must explain it only in our finite concept of Love which is not even a shadow of the intratrinitarian love of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit so again I ask the question do I mean the same thing when I say that Socrates is wise and that God is wise?

I agree that we can't comprehend God's love, but is still love. On the same hand, we can't comprehend God's grieving, yet it's still grieving!


One last thing I agree that God can be grieved and he can also relent but I do not believe that God repents because he does nothing wrong it appears you have backed yourself into a corner does God sin? He must sin if he Repents maybe you mean "relent" or "grieved". If that is what you meant then there is nothing in consistent with saying that God relents or is grieved as I have shown above but do to you lack of reading skills you did not just quite get it. I agree that God can be grieved by mans wickedness even though he ordains it an knows it will happen. I do not for one minute claim to know how he does this and is not responsible for Evil but to me that is part of hte beauty of the divine mystery. So as usual proponents of you position (not all) have succesfully misrepresented what the other side of the debate says.

So you don't how God does it, you can't show biblically that He indeed does do it, but you still believe it? What a leap of faith! It's not that anthropopathisms or anthropomorphisms aren't existent, it's whether or not there is good evidence that they should be there. Calvinists put them everywhere where the verse doesn't follow their beliefs.

Please deal with these passages

Ephesians 1:4-5, 11 also please explain to me what God's will is or when Paul speaks of God revealing his will. As I understand it the God of OV really can have no overarching plan except to anticipate what the next human free action will do. I know that he knows everything that could happen but he is wrong a lot of times no matter how you try to explain it away.

I love these verses and agree with them wholeheartedly. I believe predestined the body of Christ to be holy and blameless before the foundation of the world. I believe to become a part of this body or to become elect, we must believe in Jesus Christ death burial and resurrection for the remission of sins. You see we both believe in election, just two different kinds. So basically one is a individual election with no choice in the matter, and the other is a corporal election, where belief is required to join! The Bible doesn't tell us either way though which one it is, so we actually both could be right, so we're forced to look at other evidences to support one or the other. Which brings me on to my next point...

I'm glad you included verse 11, because it actually supports my view. Once again you should look at the greek. In your english Bible where it says "works all things," that is translated wrong. There is actually a definite article in between "works" and "all." So a proper reading would be "works the all things." THIS IS HUGE. Why? Well, it's actually not talking about "all things" anymore, but a specific "all." Such as "all things in the room" doesn't mean all things, but rather a specific "all things." I believe the specific "all things" talked about in this passage is the body of Christ. Please explain to me why there's a definite article there, and in turn, what specific "all things" is it talking about?

Romans 8:27-29 In the context Paul is talking about about the suffereings of the present time (v.18) he then talks about the universe being subjected to futility then in 8:26 -27 Paul makes the claim tha the works all things to work for good to those whom he loves. Does that mean what appears to be unnecessary torture? I would think so since Paul took his fair share of beatings he never thought that God was twittling his thumbs while this happened it was always according to the "will" of God! I will post more later with more indepth discussion of these passages.

Check out my post to you specifically in "a question to apologists" where I once again used the original text to show this verse doesn't read how you want it to. The passage actually reads that God works with us all things, which I totally agree with. It's not "causes" like your isogesis states.

Finally Romans 9-11 I like to discuss this passage since to me it appears blatantly to be speaking of Salvation of individuals and a group not a "thing" called the Church. If you appeal to group election you must remember that the Group is made up of individuals. And the context does not support the thing called the CHurch interpretation.

You may need to explain further, but I believe Romans 9-11 is about the church that is Israel, which was not the elected group I talked about in Ephesians. That's the body of Christ. God set Israel aside at Stephen's stoning and started his original plan, the body of Christ, which was elected. You can lose your salvation in the church that is Israel, but you can't in the body of Christ.


I believe this passage causes problems for Open Theist. 1) even if you say that this is a reference to one event it doesn't matter ebcause God would have had to override the free-decisions that he cherishes so much of some of his creatures.2) This shows a compatibalistic sense in the text notice how God uses Babylon as his hammer or club and then sets his glare upon them to destroy them! I will comment more later!
By His Grace For His Glory,
Blake

I never said God couldn't intervene on our free will, I actually know He did biblically, and may even do it today!

[doogieduff]

04-12-2003 @ 07:13 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=64017#post64017)
joelkaki:

Hey, I know my analogy isn't the best fit in the world. But it does demonstrate that you can ordain something that will grieve you, but will work more fully to your purposes.

Your analogy doesn't work because there would be NO advantage to buying the car that breaks down. It would not work out ultimately for your good or your glory. But God's plan always does work out for his glory and the good of those who love him.

Joel

You're really going to have to help me here. Why would God grieve if He knew He was doing it for a benefit in the end? In your view, shouldn't He be happy because He's working out a plan for good? No matter how hard I try, I can't ever comprehend calvinism. Not scripturally, or even plain logically.

Your analogy has a boy being punished for something he did wrong. That's actually the open view bro. Your analogy should be the father (God) predestined the son to do evil, then punished him for something the son had no option but to do. So basically God made him do something then punished him for it! :no:

[doogieduff]

04-13-2003 @ 12:05 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=64828#post64828)
Blake Reas:



What does it mean when God repents? Here is the short answer for those of you who do not want to read a long drawn out debate. The passages that portray God as relenting are not misleading or false as you claim, for they do communicate something important, namely, that the course of God's actions in history do change, relative to our temporal framework.
Also from my presupposition in which I believe that God is outside of time He must be a being who enters into time to communicate with temporal creatures, so this leads to the conclusion that God's language would have to be condescending to us (analogical). "If-then" statements and other conditionals and temporally tensed language (e.g. "now", "then", "before", "after", yesterday, "tommorow"etc.) serve as a vehnicle to help us understand and relate to God or as Calvin put it God "lisps to us". I am going to anticipate an objection that will probably be raised, "Blake, you still have not answered why God would use this language!" My answer, HOW ELSE WOULD A ATEMPORAL BEING SPEAK TO A TEMPORAL CREATURE? If you can give me a different way in which an atemporal being would deal with us then please present it.

By His Grace For His Glory
Blake

Who created our language? If God, please explain why He can't communicate with the language He created. Please show me biblically a God outside of time. Also, explain to me how before the foundation of the world, God already knew His free will actions before He ever had to make them. What came first? Did God know His free will actions before He even made them? But then they really aren't His actions. I can't seem to figure this out. The fact that God knows our free will actions before the foundation of the world is easy for people to believe, but let's talk about God's free will actions. Then it gets a bit hairy. How can God know what He'll do before He even does it?

[doogieduff]

04-13-2003 @ 03:09 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=65338#post65338)
mustbenothing:

(Act9_12Out) Could the calvinists here please explain why God, who supposedly knows all the future, chose Saul to be king.

(Me) Of course not. I am in no place to fathom the mind of God. Job certainly teaches us this (Job 40:1-5; 42:1-6), and Paul echoes (Romans 11:33-36).

I'm very frightened that you would use Job as a basis for theology. Apparently you've never read the entire book of Job. It's the first book written in the Bible. Basically it's about Job and some of his friends describing God and at the end, the "lord answered JOb in a whirlwind" and basically told him he was way off on describing Him. Job was basically wrong on all His thoughts on God, and the Lord told him that.

BTW, who claimed to fathom the mind of God? It's biblical that God chose Saul as king, and we're wondering why? Why did God send Jesus Christ? Wait! Stop! Don't try and fathom the mind of God! That's foolish, He sent Him to die for our sins. Why did God choose Saul? I believe it was because Saul was a very good candidate at the time. We of course know that Saul failed, but have no reason to object to him being a pefect candidate at the time of the choosing.



(Act9_12Out) Did He know Saul would disobey? Did He know He would take the throne from Saul? Did God predestine all these actions?

(Me) Of course (Romans 8:28; Ephesians 1:11; etc.).

Your romans passage says that God works with us all things. So this doesn't say anything about Saul failing or being predestined to fail. Ephesians 1:11 has a definite article before "all" meaning a specific "all things." For more on this check out my post above to blake. And if indeed God predestined Saul to fail, explain to me why He greived?



(Act9_12Out) I think not! God chose Saul, and Saul freely disobeyed God. If Saul would've been truly repentant, God would've restored him to the throne.

(Me) With the last two sentences, I couldn't agree more. Yet, how does this prove that God didn't know or predestine Saul's disobedience?

You are seriously contradicting yourself here. You agree that that if Saul would have been repentant, that he would have had the throne restored to him, yet in the same sentence you say he was predestined to fail. It couldn't have been both ways. BTW, if he would have repented, that would have been predestined also correct? So in reality Saul isn't really doing anything.



(Act9_12Out) In conclusion, God shows us that He is consistent in His nature. God blesses those who turn from their sin, and He condemns those who turn to evil.

(Me) Exactly!

You can't agree here if you're a calvinist. Calvinism teaches that God predestines all things. So no one really turns from their sins or turns to evil. It's really God making them.



(Act9_12Out) God does not predestine their actions, but rather responds to their free will choices.

(Me) Where did this come up in the text?

It's right there. God chose Saul. Saul failed. God grieved. AKA a response to a free will action. Where is predestination in the text about Saul?


(Act9_12Out) You suggest that God was responsible for Saul's disobedience, and therefore predestined Himself to be grieved over the choice that He made?

(Me) He never said that God was responsible for Saul's disobedience. He said that God decreed it. With Paul, I will ask you:

Romans 9:19-21
19 You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?"
20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?"
21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use?

If God predestined Saul's disobedience then He's responsible for it!


(Act9_12Out) God is an emotional God who desires that we love Him emotionally as well.

(Me) Does your position just boil down to feel-good theology?


Nope, it's biblical.


(Act9_12Out) From your above quote Blake, God doesn't really love His children the way that we love our children. This "love" must be anthropomorphic as well. If His grief is anthropomorphic, then why isn't His love?

(Me) I find God's love to be analogical to our own, but not identical. God is not just a big creature -- He is the Creator.

Will you then take the same satnce on His repenting? They are both emotions.


(Act9_12Out) In closing, I would ask that you reply to specifics of my opening post. If there is a problem with my interpretation of 1 Samuel 15, please tell me where my position is flawed.

(Me) The flaw is in your conclusions, which have been nowhere argued from the text. The passage talks about God's responsiveness and wrath, and then you conclude that God couldn't know or foreordain the future. Where is predestination or foreknowledge even in view in this passage?

Exactly, it isn't even there! Acts9 was trying to figure out how it could be if God did indeed did foreknow it. He doesn't think God foreknew it, he was just showing how illogical and wrong it would be to believe it.




(Me) Please stifle the shouting.

This analogy requires that you choose a car that is good as a car. Therefore, by the analogy, Saul would have had to be chosen to be king on the grounds of his merits in being a king. And yet, there is no obvious reason to accept this.

Additionally, consider a father who sends his child to perform a task which he knows the child will fail. He may still grieve with, for, or because of the child, even though he knew that the child would fail.

Is there obvious reason to accept that God would choose somebody not ready to be a king?

Your analogy is off. Your analogy has the child performing freely. The calvinistic analogy has God forcing (or predestining) the child to fail, and then still grieving. It doesn't fit.


(doogieduff) I'm not even sure about the Hebrew, but I have a sneaky suspiscion that the Hebrew word in 1 Samuel for "grieve" is "nacham." If it indeed was this, then it actually means God repented that He made Saul King. But wait, HE CHOSE HIM TO FAIL RIGHT!?...So how can He truly repent?

(Me) Using this kind of literalism, perhaps we should take the following text to prove that God is bound in space as well as time:

Genesis 11:7
Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that they may not understand one another's speech.

Does space have an end? Time is not anything to be in or out of.

[joelkaki]

You're really going to have to help me here. Why would God grieve if He knew He was doing it for a benefit in the end?

Because it is still a saddening thing. A parent punishes a child, grieving at the child's pain, yet still doing it for the ultimate good.


In your view, shouldn't He be happy because He's working out a plan for good? No matter how hard I try, I can't ever comprehend calvinism. Not scripturally, or even plain logically.

He would still grieve as a father does at the wrong done, and the pain inflicted.


Your analogy has a boy being punished for something he did wrong. That's actually the open view bro. Your analogy should be the father (God) predestined the son to do evil, then punished him for something the son had no option but to do. So basically God made him do something then punished him for it!

My analogy had nothing to do with that. I was responding to the point that God would not purposely do something which he knew would cause him grief. I was simply giving a simple analogy that showed that even human fathers do something that grieves them, yet they do it, knowing it will work out for the final good.

Not one Open Theist has been able to truly get around this objection of mine:

God knows before something happened that either A or B would happen. After A happens, God knows that A would happen. Therefore, God learned that A would happen.

That is sick. The God of the Bible does not learn. He already knows. The Open View has it that God knows tons more now than he did at creation, the fall, and so on.

Joel

[Blake Reas]

Today @ 12:42 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=68326#post68326)
doogieduff:



Who created our language? If God, please explain why He can't communicate with the language He created. Please show me biblically a God outside of time. Also, explain to me how before the foundation of the world, God already knew His free will actions before He ever had to make them. What came first? Did God know His free will actions before He even made them? But then they really aren't His actions. I can't seem to figure this out. The fact that God knows our free will actions before the foundation of the world is easy for people to believe, but let's talk about God's free will actions. Then it gets a bit hairy. How can God know what He'll do before He even does it?


You actually raise some questions that I have been struggling with for about 6 months now. For instance if God predetermines all things then did God predetermine himself? That is incoherent it seems that it will lead to an infinite regress. So I do totally think you raise good objections. I am reading some stuff by Donald Bloesch also which he is a Calvinist but a weird one. When I get done reading his books I will post my opinions on it then and maybe you will get a taste for a modified Calvinism. I as of now do not hold his views on divine sovereiegnty but I think he makes a better case than does the Open View.

Blake

[Blake Reas]

Today @ 12:31 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=68301#post68301)
doogieduff:



I never said God had to reveal Himself "visually" nor did I ever say He needed to reveal Himself fully. All I said was that God told us a little about Himself in the Bible. I'm going to trust that what He tells me about Himself is true. I think He knows Himself best, don't you? Others decide they want to isogete the Bible to fit their beliefs, and come to the conclusion that God was basically lying so that we can understand Him. I guess God isn't "smart" enough to talk to His creation, so He has to fool us by speaking things that are untrue.




I don't see the relevance here. I believe God has two wills. BOULE (counsel) and THELEMA (desire). So what's your point? If you admit to not coming close to understanding God then you must admit that your beliefs are most likely not correct, because you can't understand God!




I agree that we can't comprehend God's love, but is still love. On the same hand, we can't comprehend God's grieving, yet it's still grieving!




So you don't how God does it, you can't show biblically that He indeed does do it, but you still believe it? What a leap of faith! It's not that anthropopathisms or anthropomorphisms aren't existent, it's whether or not there is good evidence that they should be there. Calvinists put them everywhere where the verse doesn't follow their beliefs.



I love these verses and agree with them wholeheartedly. I believe predestined the body of Christ to be holy and blameless before the foundation of the world. I believe to become a part of this body or to become elect, we must believe in Jesus Christ death burial and resurrection for the remission of sins. You see we both believe in election, just two different kinds. So basically one is a individual election with no choice in the matter, and the other is a corporal election, where belief is required to join! The Bible doesn't tell us either way though which one it is, so we actually both could be right, so we're forced to look at other evidences to support one or the other. Which brings me on to my next point...

I'm glad you included verse 11, because it actually supports my view. Once again you should look at the greek. In your english Bible where it says "works all things," that is translated wrong. There is actually a definite article in between "works" and "all." So a proper reading would be "works the all things." THIS IS HUGE. Why? Well, it's actually not talking about "all things" anymore, but a specific "all." Such as "all things in the room" doesn't mean all things, but rather a specific "all things." I believe the specific "all things" talked about in this passage is the body of Christ. Please explain to me why there's a definite article there, and in turn, what specific "all things" is it talking about?



Check out my post to you specifically in "a question to apologists" where I once again used the original text to show this verse doesn't read how you want it to. The passage actually reads that God works with us all things, which I totally agree with. It's not "causes" like your isogesis states.



You may need to explain further, but I believe Romans 9-11 is about the church that is Israel, which was not the elected group I talked about in Ephesians. That's the body of Christ. God set Israel aside at Stephen's stoning and started his original plan, the body of Christ, which was elected. You can lose your salvation in the church that is Israel, but you can't in the body of Christ.



I never said God couldn't intervene on our free will, I actually know He did biblically, and may even do it today!

I will clarify to you the same way I did with GeeBob since I think we are in the same boat (almost). Analogies do tell us something of God but not the whole picture. THey are more there to guide us by the hand and give us true saving knowledge.

By His grace For His glory
Blake

[doogieduff]

Today @ 06:11 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=68403#post68403)
joelkaki:



Because it is still a saddening thing. A parent punishes a child, grieving at the child's pain, yet still doing it for the ultimate good.



He would still grieve as a father does at the wrong done, and the pain inflicted.



My analogy had nothing to do with that. I was responding to the point that God would not purposely do something which he knew would cause him grief. I was simply giving a simple analogy that showed that even human fathers do something that grieves them, yet they do it, knowing it will work out for the final good.

Not one Open Theist has been able to truly get around this objection of mine:

God knows before something happened that either A or B would happen. After A happens, God knows that A would happen. Therefore, God learned that A would happen.

That is sick. The God of the Bible does not learn. He already knows. The Open View has it that God knows tons more now than he did at creation, the fall, and so on.

Joel

Your analogy still doesn't work. Why is the parent punishing the child? Because the child made a free will choice to do bad! Your analogy should be like this: A parent pushes his kid out in the street as a car is coming, then punishes the kid for running in the street as a car was coming. You can't get around the fact that your belief says God predestines everything including the wrong doing of the kid. So God's predestination forces them to do somehting wrong, then they get punished for something they are forced to do.

You say it is sick that God learns. I don't necessary hold to that, but I don't see why it is sick that God could learn something. Keeping philosophy out, and asking an unbeliever, let's see how this goes:

Calvinist: "I believe that if you're not elect there's nothing you can do to get to heaven!"

Unbeliever: "I had an abortion at 17, what about my unborn baby?"

Calvinist: "If you're baby was not elect, it's going to hell, I'm sorry."

or...

Open Viewer: "God knew you would do one thing or another, when you made your free choice, He decided to respond to that action. In the example of King Saul, He knew he could be a good king or fail as king. When Saul made the free will choice to fail as king, God decided to take the throne away from him. So, in a sense, God learned."

Calvinist: "That is sick! You said God learns! If an unelect aborted baby goes to hell, that's OK, but God can't learn!!!!"

Unbeliever: "I'm hurt to find out that my unborn baby may be in hell for eternity. I also heard that your calvinist God made my sister get raped, and will use it for good, and that it's part of His plan. How can a God rape a girl fro His plan? Why would He put my sister through that! That's sick...With you Open Viewer, I'm glad that God has given me free will, and I also believe that a wrong decision deserves punishment, such as King Saul. God may have learned that Saul failed, event hough He knew it could have happened. But He already had a plan prepared for either outcome. I'm just glad that I have free will. I also heard you believe in the age of accountability which means my baby girl is waiting for me in heaven, thank you!"

Who's view is sick dude?

In a sense God learns and in a sense He doesn't. His perfect knowledge gives Him a great idea what will happen. We don't say that God learned when Adam sinned. You see, God already had a pretty good idea that he would. Why? Well, look at lucifer. He was in a sinless environment, and the top of all angels, and he still fell. God saw that a free choice meant that there was a choice to be bad. He saw lucifer do it in a perfect environment, and probably thought man would follow on the same path. I would even go as far as saying He KNEW it would happen. You can't show biblically that a God who learns is a bad God. It's all that philosophy that gets in the way. God's not in it to learn. He's here to have us respond freely and return His love to Him. And that's not sick to me, even if it means "learning" on the way.

[GrayPilgrim]

Your perversion of the reformed view is defintely sick dude.

In the Compatabilist model, the human agent is still responsible for his actions and it so Joel's analogy is very apt for the Reformed model.

[Solly]

Just poking my head around the door - I have downloaded this thread, but not read it yet. however, doesn't the account read:

1Sa 8:5 And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.
1Sa 8:6 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD.
1Sa 8:7 And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.
1Sa 8:8 According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee.
1Sa 8:9 Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.
1Sa 8:10 And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king.

Didn't God do exactly that: give them a king like the nations? Didn't he then have his own king ready once they had learned their lesson?
I thought the context of Saul's reign was the continued disobedience of Israel, right up to Eli's time when they lost the Ark to the Philistines. God had predicted their disobedience in Deutoronomy; had chastised them for it throu judges, and yet they still did not learn.
He told them, through Samuel:

1Sa 8:18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.
1Sa 8:19 Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us;
1Sa 8:20 That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.
1Sa 8:21 And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he rehearsed them in the ears of the LORD.

They wanted to be independant of God, so they got a king who lived independant of God, by his own choice. He was a good man, but God put him into a situation where he could follow his own desires if he wanted, and he did.

He warned them:
1Sa 12:13 Now therefore behold the king whom ye have chosen, [and] whom ye have desired! and, behold, the LORD hath set a king over you.
1Sa 12:14 If ye will fear the LORD, and serve him, and obey his voice, and not rebel against the commandment of the LORD, then shall both ye and also the king that reigneth over you continue following the LORD your God:
1Sa 12:15 But if ye will not obey the voice of the LORD, but rebel against the commandment of the LORD, then shall the hand of the LORD be against you, as [it was] against your fathers.

In the whole Redemptive historical context, Saul is the best flesh can do - and it isn't good enough: yes, God knew Saul would fail; Israel had already failed; he knows we all will fail. But God has something better prepared; that is the Gospel as pre-figured in the OT history. Saul fitted the bill as far as the Israelites were concerned, and deceived themselves. God then chose a man after his own heart. It is the Adam/Christ situation played out in history - or else why do we need these historical accounts?

Did God chose Saul knowing he would fail? Yes, if by that it means that he did not provide the grace required that Saul might overcome his sin-influenced character traits - anymore than you or I can. (And also bearing in mind that this is not just any old account, this is what would go into scripture as an example to us all, to teach us God's ways). Did God grieve over it? Sure, why not, you think he delights in sin, delights to see the image of God further tarnished and abused? Did God repent, in the way you and I repent? No, not if it meant he changed his mind to something completely different; but it did mean that the curses he had pronounced upon the Israelites and their King would be brought into force, as he had told them - hence he repented, he turned from blessing to curse.

[Blake Reas]

Solly,

Thanks for that post! I need to start reading the more into the context of the book instead of the immediate context:no:! Anyway, God Bless

Blake

[Blake Reas]

Today @ 12:31 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=68301#post68301)
doogieduff:



[quote]I never said God had to reveal Himself "visually" nor did I ever say He needed to reveal Himself fully. All I said was that God told us a little about Himself in the Bible. I'm going to trust that what He tells me about Himself is true. I think He knows Himself best, don't you? Others decide they want to isogete the Bible to fit their beliefs, and come to the conclusion that God was basically lying so that we can understand Him. I guess God isn't "smart" enough to talk to His creation, so He has to fool us by speaking things that are untrue.

Yeah Exactly he reveals a little of himself through Human language which is adequate to do the job as far as it goes (analogically) the language of scripture is accomodated to us. I never said God was lying did I? No, I said that God tells us the whole truth about himself but not all of the truth just enough for Salvation.




I don't see the relevance here. I believe God has two wills. BOULE (counsel) and THELEMA (desire). So what's your point? If you admit to not coming close to understanding God then you must admit that your beliefs are most likely not correct, because you can't understand God!

Like I said before analogy entails similarity but greater dissimalirity between God and creature for instance our logic is not as extensive as God's logic do to sin that is why all of our thought processes break down after a while and turn into irrationiality. A good example would be the Trinity, Incarnation, Soveriegnty and Human freedom are not things that we can grasp with out reason I would also say that God's inccommunicable attributes are for the realm of analogy while the communicable attributes are literal to us since we reflect them.




I agree that we can't comprehend God's love, but is still love. On the same hand, we can't comprehend God's grieving, yet it's still grieving!

Exactly where you meaning to say something profound? He freely loves something we cannot expereince he has no constraints. Yeah he can grieve and determine things there is no warrant for saying that he cannot.



So you don't how God does it, you can't show biblically that He indeed does do it, but you still believe it? What a leap of faith! It's not that anthropopathisms or anthropomorphisms aren't existent, it's whether or not there is good evidence that they should be there. Calvinists put them everywhere where the verse doesn't follow their beliefs.

No you are wrong Calvinist see get this [B]ALL OF SCRIPTURE[B] as anthropomporphic! Calvin said all scripture is Accomodated but you would not know that because you probably are scared to read the institutes because it might prove your misconception of Calvinism wrong. Keep beating your Strawman.

I love these verses and agree with them wholeheartedly. I believe predestined the body of Christ to be holy and blameless before the foundation of the world. I believe to become a part of this body or to become elect, we must believe in Jesus Christ death burial and resurrection for the remission of sins. You see we both believe in election, just two different kinds. So basically one is a individual election with no choice in the matter, and the other is a corporal election, where belief is required to join! The Bible doesn't tell us either way though which one it is, so we actually both could be right, so we're forced to look at other evidences to support one or the other. Which brings me on to my next point...

No you do not believe in Coporate election you believe in what I call the "thing called the Church" If it was a group election individuals must make it up but you are don't want to go there. Also on the Open View how did God Predestine the Church? He could not be 100% sure that there would even be one could he? Oh my bad you will play your trump card that says he would take over situations so that there would be a Church which is compatibalism.

I'm glad you included verse 11, because it actually supports my view. Once again you should look at the greek. In your english Bible where it says "works all things," that is translated wrong. There is actually a definite article in between "works" and "all." So a proper reading would be "works the all things." THIS IS HUGE. Why? Well, it's actually not talking about "all things" anymore, but a specific "all." Such as "all things in the room" doesn't mean all things, but rather a specific "all things." I believe the specific "all things" talked about in this passage is the body of Christ. Please explain to me why there's a definite article there, and in turn, what specific "all things" is it talking about?

Hmm.....first you need to explain why every single critical commentary I picked up today at the seminary disagrees with you better yet it never mentions an argument like that. I cannot comment on your Greek "exegesis" but I do not know greek and I do not attempt to deal with things I know nothing about.



Check out my post to you specifically in "a question to apologists" where I once again used the original text to show this verse doesn't read how you want it to. The passage actually reads that God works with us all things, which I totally agree with. It's not "causes" like your isogesis states.

Again no commentaries say this and I am going to read commentaries and believe them before I listen to some one who I do not even know what qualifications they have in Greek. I cannot respond because I do not know greek so I will see if someone else can destroy your argument. Every translation I have read reads similar to the reading of mine. Also in Greg Boyd's book Satan and the Problem of Evil he never appeals to your masterful handling of this passage.


You may need to explain further, but I believe Romans 9-11 is about the church that is Israel, which was not the elected group I talked about in Ephesians. That's the body of Christ. God set Israel aside at Stephen's stoning and started his original plan, the body of Christ, which was elected. You can lose your salvation in the church that is Israel, but you can't in the body of Christ.

That's nice you can believe that all you want. I will post my thoughts on this passage at a later date. I do know that it does refer to group election and Individual election not your "thing called the Church" interepretation. For there to be a group there must be individuals.


I never said God couldn't intervene on our free will, I actually know He did biblically, and may even do it today!
So you actually revert back to compatibalism? That is amazing! You complain about Calvinist but yet when good old YWHW decides to control some one and take their free will away you have no problem with it! Sounds like a bunch of bunk to me. :hrm:

By His Grace For His Glory
Blake

[Blake Reas]

As I understand you Doogie you want to say that the God of Calvinism is sick and Sadistic (correct me if I am wrong) but yet you turn around and after i mention one of the many that reveals God in control over history you say this:

I never said God couldn't intervene on our free will, I actually know He did biblically, and may even do it today!

Now I under stand that you believe in indeterministic Free-will (correct me if I am wrong) but the thing is you just destroyed it.

If God ordains Babylon to destroy and then be destroyed, then they do not have free will and it breaks down into compatibalism since they are responsible. (this would include the leaders and the army)
God ordains Babylon to destroy and then be destroyed
Therefore there is no free-will and it leads to compatibalism.

P=>Q
P
therefore Q


You do not believe in compatibalism so this seems incoherent. Also you complained that God would ordain and abortion yet you seem to have no problem with him ordaining the genocide of the cannanites in the OT. WHy is that? If he can still intervene today and take controly surely he "could" have made Sept. 11 happen! Even your OV god, so your position seems like you are grasping at straws

[Gavin]

Doodieduff,

Calvinist: "I believe that if you're not elect there's nothing you can do to get to heaven!"

Unbeliever: "I had an abortion at 17, what about my unborn baby?"

Calvinist: "If you're baby was not elect, it's going to hell, I'm sorry."

That is a misrepresentation of Calvinism. Divine election was never intended to justify the idea that the non-elect are unable to repent even if they want to. Far from it! Divine election simply holds that it is ultimately God who gives some the grace to want to repent in the first place, and withholds that grace from others, for his own sovereign reasons. In other words, there would never be an instance were a non-elect person would truly repent and truly seek God and so on (in Calvinism).

Furthermore, you bringing in the example of a young child brings in further complexities. It is not the universal Calvinist position that all babies who die before the age of accountability go to heaven or hell on the basis of election. Many Calvinists believe that all babies that die before the age of accountability go to heaven as a testament of God's fundamental benevolence. I myself am undecided on this particular issue but I see the merits in it.

In any case, you are misrepresenting Calvinism by your caricature of what a Calvinist would say in quoted dialogue above, and it is a good bit annoying.

By the way, Blake you are doing a great job. Your comments on the first page were helpful. Keep it up!

:thumb:

[Blake Reas]

All the passages that you appeal to, to show that God "relents" are there for a reason. They are there for the reason of the people. I would like to see you refute the argument as follows.
Most of the passages if not all can be shown as Solly has done in the Wider context something OVers never appeal to and Canon Context always shows them to be anthropomorphic.
As to some of the specific passages the portray God as relenting it is more to get a response from the people. An example would be the book of Jonah. Through out the book we are given a what appears to be a narrative beyond the narrative. Jonah knows that God is not going to bring this about that is why Jonah complains and belly aches the whole time. God warns the people of ninevah that if they do not repent he is going to lay the smack down on them :smile:! In other words relenting is how God works, he uses it to get a response. Same with Sinai when Moses prays to God, God relents it was to get a response from the people. It is how God sovereigny chose to govern the world. More on this later just some initial thoughts I will try and give some passages that show this. Dr. Bruce Ware gave me these thoughts in a discussion I had with him today so pretty much anything I say will probably not be as well stated as he stated it. (sigh)

By His Grace For His Glory
Blake

[doogieduff]

Today @ 04:37 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=69220#post69220)
GrayPilgrim:

Your perversion of the reformed view is defintely sick dude.

In the Compatabilist model, the human agent is still responsible for his actions and it so Joel's analogy is very apt for the Reformed model.

My perversion? I have no idea what you talk about when you say "reformed view." joelkaki claimed to be a 5-point calvinist, so i studied the five points of John Calvin. If he believes something different, it would then no longer be calvinism, because calvinism defined is what John Calvin believed, correct? I was responding to that.

[joelkaki]

Today @ 05:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=70094#post70094)
doogieduff:



My perversion? I have no idea what you talk about when you say "reformed view." joelkaki claimed to be a 5-point calvinist, so i studied the five points of John Calvin. If he believes something different, it would then no longer be calvinism, because calvinism defined is what John Calvin believed, correct? I was responding to that.

Your analogy indicated that in the Calvinist model people are forced to do something. That is not the Reformed view. People do it willingly. No one forces me to sin. I do it very willingly. If you are studying the 5 points of Calvinism, a very good book you might find informative is Chosen By God by R.C. Sproul. He would represent what I believe.


Joel

[doogieduff]

Today @ 01:16 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=69854#post69854)
Blake Reas:



Yeah Exactly he reveals a little of himself through Human language which is adequate to do the job as far as it goes (analogically) the language of scripture is accomodated to us. I n