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

[Rusty T]

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 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.

So when God said "Now I know" in Genesis 22:12, He was speaking the truth right? Of course. It shows my point. What about when God told Hezekiah that he would die and not live. (Isaiah 38) Hezekiah prayed and God added 15 years to his life. Was God telling the truth when He said Hezekiah would die and not surely live? You bet! And once again proves my point.



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.

Ok? I agree I guess. This really has nothing to do with our conversation.



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.

God's grievance is regret or repentance of His actions and the actions of others. This does not fit with the calvinistic view, or the traditional view of foreknowledge.



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.

Dude, all scripture can't be anthropomorphic based on the defnition of anthropomorphic! Are you confused?



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.

You're now telling me what I believe! This is great. I'm glad you know me so well. There are two distinct bodies of believers in the bible. The church that is Israel and the body of Christ. God predestined the body of christ very simply. (The overview of the Bible is the key to it's details!) The body of Christ was His original plan and original predestination! It started with Adam and Eve. God predestined them then to be a body of believers, with no exception as to who could recieve salvation. But Adam sinned, and God started a new plan of redemption, in which He used the church that is Israel. After Christ died, and Israel failed, God judged this church at the stoning of Stephen, and reinstated the body of Christ which was predestined before the foundation of the world! It's total Open View, and glorifies God!



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.

Commentaries are made on the english texts, and i could care less what they say. A commentary is somebody's opinion. If you think I'm lying to you, that's fine. Start a thread about it. There's a ton of people on here who know greek, and they will all have to agree because when you open the majority text, it's there! I love your copout though. It totally shows you are not here to learn truth. This should be something that interests you. Why base your faith on a mistranslated text? You don't even have to know greek to seek out one who does and find out about this verse. But your true motives have reared their ugly head. I'm sorry to see that. I'll show you something even more evident that it's talking about a specific all things, check this out...

verse 10 in Eph. 1 says "He might gather together in one all things in Christ"

this is a specific all things once again, and verse 11 keeps talking about this specific "all things" as it says "Him who works (these) all things (in Christ) according to the counsel of His will."

Wow! and you didn't even need a commentary. Remember how I'm always talking about this body of believers who are in Christ. (AKA body of Christ) Wow, here they are! It's a specific all things in Christ, which is the body of Christ. Don't just say "I don't greek, so I'm not going to worry about it!" That's like saying "I don't know anything about cars, so i don't have to worry about that pinging noise in the engine!" Seek out the problems, figure out what's going on to stay consistent in what you believe. If you still don't believe me, I will start a post on it, so if a calvinist says it's there, you will finally believe. Ok?



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.

Your going to believe a commentary before the original text? uh-oh...putting man over God's original spoken words



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.

ok? For there to be a group, you're right, there must be individuals. BUt that doesn't mean you can't predestine a group without predestining individuals. If you told a class full of kids that all who scored 90% and above would become part of a predestined group called the "honor students" you have nothing to do with predestining individuals to be a part of it. It's their choice to study and get good grades, and if they do, they are pasrt of the predestined group, called the "honor students." You see?



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

I complain about each and everything being predestined. Because then I have no choice in life. God was forced to mess with free will in order for His redemption plan to work. (Acts 4:28) Once again, proof for the open view. It's not bunk, just biblical truth!

[doogieduff]

Today @ 03:51 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=70064#post70064)
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

I'm so glad you said this, because it proves my point, and yes you are very very wrong. This is exactly why we are talking about SAUL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! God relented of HIS OWN CHOICE!!! This is completely different than jonah and others, because it can't be for the people. God repents of His own decision. Also, where in the Bible does it say that God would only destroy them if they didin't repent. It's not in my bible. It just says God will destroy them, and there's no mention of a condition.

Dude, you should read Exodus 32 again, becasue you are totally missing what it said. You said "God relented for the people." Yet in ex. 32, God relented of His destruction of the people because of what moses said! The people had no idea God said He would destroy them, yet He rlented before they ever could repent or even know what He said! I have a sneaky suspiscion you were born into the clavinistic view, which makes it that much harder to even want to learn anything else. I was born into the calvinistic view, and whenI actually took the time to leanr what the open view had to say, I found truth.

Tell Bruce Ware that i love his book, but I wish he would have refuted my open view beliefs. Let him know that OV believes in divine providence. Let him know that we don't deny God's omnipotence as he states countless times. And let him know also to look at the greek as his book relflects a mistranslated Romans 8:28. Thanks!

[doogieduff]

Today @ 04:39 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=70110#post70110)
joelkaki:



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

So you're saying I can do different from what God predestines me to do? Right? If I can't, then I'm forced to do what He predestines...hmmm......if He elects me, can i freely choose to not accept His grace?....

[Blake Reas]

Yesterday @ 11:30 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.

Wow I really do not trust you "exegesis" now! Have you read all 704 pages of the institues? Also Calvin did not come up with TULIP it is reflected in his theology. The five points was a response to Arminus at the Canon of Dort long after Calvin was dead and gone. You obviously have no clue what you are talking about. Like I said if you do not know what you are talking about keep it zipped.

By His Grace For His Glory
Blake

[Blake Reas]

Today @ 12:13 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=70150#post70150)
doogieduff:



[quote]I'm so glad you said this, because it proves my point, and yes you are very very wrong. This is exactly why we are talking about SAUL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! God relented of HIS OWN CHOICE!!! This is completely different than jonah and others, because it can't be for the people. God repents of His own decision. Also, where in the Bible does it say that God would only destroy them if they didin't repent. It's not in my bible. It just says God will destroy them, and there's no mention of a condition.

Um.. did you read what Solly posted? Also in Jonah 3:4 it says that yet 40 days and ninevah will be destroyed. The point that I am making is that Jonah was used for God's purpose! He knew they would repent and it was his way of using Jonah that in his action in the world by which he did it. I am sorry if you do not get this, the condition does not have to be stated besides Jonah knew God wasn't going to bring this down on them. In Jonah 4:2 Jonah admits that God is a compassionate God. He has ordained this and made it happen in his perceptive will but his hidden decree does not change. Are you going to interact with this argument or are you going to keep saying I am wrong.


Dude, you should read Exodus 32 again, becasue you are totally missing what it said. You said "God relented for the people." Yet in ex. 32, God relented of His destruction of the people because of what moses said! The people had no idea God said He would destroy them, yet He rlented before they ever could repent or even know what He said! I have a sneaky suspiscion you were born into the clavinistic view, which makes it that much harder to even want to learn anything else. I was born into the calvinistic view, and whenI actually took the time to leanr what the open view had to say, I found truth.

It is not the fact that God repented that matters. Again God invoked a response against the Israelites he provoked Moses to repent for the people. God does act in history in his perceptive will but his will of decree is off limits to us. And your sneaky suspicion is wrong i was brought up in a millitant Arminian church. I became a Calvinist about 6 months ago so your characterization of me is wrong. Hte first book I read about theology was Greg Boyd's book God at War which is probably the best expostion of the Open view alogn with his book Satan and the Problem of Evil. Also my Dad is nominal Christian and My Mom would not know what a Calvinist was if you told her. My Grandparents are only nominal Christians and My uncle hates that I am a Calvinist so you are wrong.

As John Feinberg explans Exodus 32 in pg. 274 of No One Like Him : The Doctrine of God.

Exodus 32
God is angry with Israel becasue of her disobedience, and threatens to destroy her totally. Moses interventes for his people, reminding God of his covenants with them, and in essence repents for the people. In light of Moses's advocacy, God repents of the evil he thought to do to Israel. It is important to remember that God's standares are such taht he hates sin and must punish it. Hence, when Israel disobeys the Lord, there is not option for God, given his unchanging nature and moral rules, but to punish them. However, God has also stipulated taht if a sinner repents, he will forgive and bless. So, when Moses pleads for the people and in effect repents, this effects a relational change between God and Israel, but this happens because God's holiness and standards of punishment and blessing are immutable. In this case as well, God must forego completely destroying Israel because of his covenant Promises that are unchanging. So God changes his relationship with Israel because of his unchanging covenants and unchanging moral governance of the world. The way the biblical writer reports this is to use anthropomorphism that God "repented" of the evil he had planned to do. We should note as welll that the impression that Moses "reminds" God of His covenant promises must also bea an anthropomorphism. Though some views claim that God does not knwo the future, no poponent of omniscience can afford to claim that God has really forgotten his promises he made in the past.

So I think that you have misunderstood. In Exodus 32:13 Moses "reminds" God of the Covenant. Now on a straigh forward reading of this passage which is:


[13]REmember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Your Servants to whom You swore by Yourself, and said to them 'I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heavens, and all this land of which I have spoken I will give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it forever."
[14]So the Lord Changed his Mind about the harm which He said He would do to His People.]

Now, Doogie since you want to say that V.14 is not anthropomorphic you must say the same thing abou v.13 in which it appears that God forgot his covenant! It appears that God does not know the past either! I want to see you try and wiggle your way out of this. I see no way in which you can get around this. You either must say that this passage is one that cannot be used or well lets just say you are wrong.

Here is your problem

If you take Genesis 32:14 literally, then you must takev. 13 literally.
you take v.14 literally
Therefore you must say God forgot the Covenant.

You have just denied God's past knowledge which now makes you a heretic. So for you to keep to your position you should carry it the rest of the way through.


Tell Bruce Ware that i love his book, but I wish he would have refuted my open view beliefs. Let him know that OV believes in divine providence. Let him know that we don't deny God's omnipotence as he states countless times. And let him know also to look at the greek as his book relflects a mistranslated Romans 8:28. Thanks!

Maybe I will e-mail this to Bruce Ware. You only believe in Providence after you redefine it to fit your preconcieved notions. You only affirm God's Omnipotence in a way that again fits your "relational the only atttribute that matters is Love God" you do not affirm the traiditional sense of Omnipotence. So no you do not hold to the real original defintion that has been held since the early Church Fathers. Again I ask why does virtually every commentary disagree with you? Please do not appeal to conspiracy. Also Ware was critiquing Boyd in an early book God of the Possible and it appears you are a Boydite which means that when something does not fit your pressupposition you just change your theory a little bit so you can say God ordains this but not other things. It is like I said grasping at straws.

By His Grace For His Glory
Blake

[Blake Reas]

Today @ 12:02 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=70128#post70128)
doogieduff:



[quote]So when God said "Now I know" in Genesis 22:12, He was speaking the truth right? Of course. It shows my point. What about when God told Hezekiah that he would die and not live. (Isaiah 38) Hezekiah prayed and God added 15 years to his life. Was God telling the truth when He said Hezekiah would die and not surely live? You bet! And once again proves my point.

Hey you want to throw around Genesis passages do you? Ok I can do the same why should we not interpret Genesis 3:9, 3:11, etc. Did God not really know where they where? or who told them taht they could be like God? Does God really walk through the cool of the garden, breath etc?
With Hezekiah why does God not just do it instead of telling Hezekiah? It is because he is illiciting a response from him for instance why did God not just heal Hezekiah instead of telling him about it? After all would it not be natural and expected for anyone, upon hearing that he was about to die to plead with God to Spare his life? And might God not have known and expected Hezekiah would respond in just this way? Could he have done this so that Hezekiah would feel his love? Cannot all o fhtis be true while concieving that God used his stated intention through Isaiah ("you shall die and not live") in order to accomplish his real intention (I will heal you and add fifteen years to you life") by eliciting Hezekiah's prayer and then granting him this long for extended life?





God's grievance is regret or repentance of His actions and the actions of others. This does not fit with the calvinistic view, or the traditional view of foreknowledge.

So God can be wrong? I thought you said you believed in Omnipotence! Also how does this conflict with Calvinism? All the Calvinist I have ever read or heard speak take the relentance passages seriously.

If God is omnipotent, then He does not do wrong
God is omnipotent
therefore God does not wrong

If you are not going to affirm the traditional view of Omnipotence as it has been defined then stop playing word games and equivocating and admit it.



Dude, all scripture can't be anthropomorphic based on the defnition of anthropomorphic! Are you confused?

Actually if you would have read my post earlier it can. God made Adam from the dust of the ground there is no "shared context between us and God" He must condescend in his grace for us to have saving knowledge such as the burning bush, Incarnation (the ultimate Anthropomorhism), wrestling with Jacob. THe point is that every time God reveals himself he must do so in a way that our feeble minds can understand. God's thoughts are not our thoughts and his ways are not our ways. I am giving a biblical definition of Anthropomorphism. Also what I meant by all scripture being Anthro ,

Anthropomorphism Biblically Defined- Because God formed Adam from the dust of the earth and breatehed into his nostrils the breaht of life, making him in his own image and likeness, God makes himself known to his creatures in theif likeness, as i fhe wears both their form and qualites when in fact they wear his likeness.

In other words it is theomorphic. God must come down to us and portray himself in terms we understand (ie. relenting, changing his mind, etc) There is just no other way we could understand do to sin. this is what I mean by Scripture being I will call it from now in theomorphic.




You're now telling me what I believe! This is great. I'm glad you know me so well. There are two distinct bodies of believers in the bible. The church that is Israel and the body of Christ. God predestined the body of christ very simply. (The overview of the Bible is the key to it's details!) The body of Christ was His original plan and original predestination! It started with Adam and Eve. God predestined them then to be a body of believers, with no exception as to who could recieve salvation. But Adam sinned, and God started a new plan of redemption, in which He used the church that is Israel. After Christ died, and Israel failed, God judged this church at the stoning of Stephen, and reinstated the body of Christ which was predestined before the foundation of the world! It's total Open View, and glorifies God!

Yeah I did tell you what you believed and it was right. You believe in a thing called the Church. You do not believe in group election as it has been defined in the past. For there to be a group there must be individuals in the group. So did God predesting the group? if you believe that it is Calvinism.



Commentaries are made on the english texts, and i could care less what they say. A commentary is somebody's opinion. If you think I'm lying to you, that's fine. Start a thread about it. There's a ton of people on here who know greek, and they will all have to agree because when you open the majority text, it's there! I love your copout though. It totally shows you are not here to learn truth. This should be something that interests you. Why base your faith on a mistranslated text? You don't even have to know greek to seek out one who does and find out about this verse. But your true motives have reared their ugly head. I'm sorry to see that. I'll show you something even more evident that it's talking about a specific all things, check this out...

Actually the Critical commentaries are based on the Greek. You are not very into books are you. Your ignorance betrays you since Jaltus is an Arminian and he agrees with the english translations I suspect you are sitting their with your little Strongs concordance propounding your ignorance. Like I said it is not a cop out it is the fact that I do not know greek right now because I have not had teh chance to take the classes. A little knowledge is just dangerous enough to misinterpret so I am wating. It is not a cop out it is admitting your ignorance of something. which is something you should do every know and then. You don't listen to Bob Hill don' you? He is known for his mistranslation of passages. Also your interpretation is not based upon bias? If it is why should I beleive you?



verse 10 in Eph. 1 says "He might gather together in one all things in Christ"

this is a specific all things once again, and verse 11 keeps talking about this specific "all things" as it says "Him who works (these) all things (in Christ) according to the counsel of His will."

Yeah it specifies the elect whom he predestined. The All in Ephesians is a comprehensive all things. If you do not realize this then you are not even worth talking to. Is the only thing taht God subjected under Christ feet the Church and not the world? becuase with your interpretation the end of Chapter 1 would have to be translated that way. In fact Ephesians emphasis Christ cosmic reign as a theme do to the Heresy that was floating around Asia minor at the time that denied the deity of christ. So if fits the context that Paul would be emphasizing Christ power.


Wow! and you didn't even need a commentary. Remember how I'm always talking about this body of believers who are in Christ. (AKA body of Christ) Wow, here they are! It's a specific all things in Christ, which is the body of Christ. Don't just say "I don't greek, so I'm not going to worry about it!" That's like saying "I don't know anything about cars, so i don't have to worry about that pinging noise in the engine!" Seek out the problems, figure out what's going on to stay consistent in what you believe. If you still don't believe me, I will start a post on it, so if a calvinist says it's there, you will finally believe. Ok?

No I did not say that and you are mischaracterizing me. The fact is the New Baker exegetical commentary on Ephesians deals with the greek and I consulted it today while I was at the library and he uses Greek so You are false. You apparently have never opened a commentary or a Critical commentary.


Your going to believe a commentary before the original text? uh-oh...putting man over God's original spoken words

When I am ignorant of what the "orignals" (even though they do not exist except through Textual criticism) I do rely on Scholars who use the Greek text to interpret I would refer you to the New Internation Critical Commentary edited by S.R. Driver and others. Such as any Exegetical commetnary that has full greek text.




ok? For there to be a group, you're right, there must be individuals. BUt that doesn't mean you can't predestine a group without predestining individuals. If you told a class full of kids that all who scored 90% and above would become part of a predestined group called the "honor students" you have nothing to do with predestining individuals to be a part of it. It's their choice to study and get good grades, and if they do, they are pasrt of the predestined group, called the "honor students." You see?

Yeah but that is not taught in scripture. I will grant if your "translation" if we can call it that is correct then you are right but I have yet to see any Critical commentary that deals with the Greek text say that. You may be appealing to Karl Barth interpretation that God chose all men in Christ but he was leaning towards Universalism so I hope you are not going there.

By HIs Grace For His Glory
Blake




I complain about each and everything being predestined. Because then I have no choice in life. God was forced to mess with free will in order for His redemption plan to work. (Acts 4:28) Once again, proof for the open view. It's not bunk, just biblical truth!

So here is your bias. We must have indeterministic free-will any other interpretation is rejected taht is why you object to Eph 1 and Romans 8 because in fact you cannot deal with them anyother way. No it is still Bunk.

[Gavin]

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)


Hey Blake, how do you know Dr. Ware?

Keep up the good debate.

[Blake Reas]

Today @ 04:40 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=70397#post70397)
Gavin:



Hey Blake, how do you know Dr. Ware?

Keep up the good debate.

He teaches at The Southern Baptist Seminary where I go to school, actually I go to the undergrad but it is like 50 yards from his office. A lot of the Seminary Profs teach at boyce also.

By His Grace For His Glory
Blake

[Blake Reas]

Today @ 12:15 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=70154#post70154)
doogieduff:



So you're saying I can do different from what God predestines me to do? Right? If I can't, then I'm forced to do what He predestines...hmmm......if He elects me, can i freely choose to not accept His grace?....

No you misunderstand Calvinism again. The Calvinist would say you have desires and you do what you desire to do it is not against your will. God does not force us to do anything. As Luther said you are Either Satan's Ass (donkey) Christ's Ass(Donkey) one or the other will steer you. Christ sets us free from our sinful nature in which our hearts are inclined to evil.

In Essence it goes like this
An agent is free if he does things that are in accordance to his desires. God does not hold a gun to our head and tells us to do something we do it willingly. The unbeliever does not want to know God because he is in Bondage to sin Christ frees the unbeliever from this to a life in which he is able to love God.

[Act9_12Out]

Solly,

You say,


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.

Verse 7 shows that the people rejected God. The people rejected God and desired a king. The point you miss is that God handpicked Saul (1 Sam 10:24). Your next quote (v 18) shows God's disappointment when the people choose the king.


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.

Again, the problem here is, God chose Saul. The people did not. Your last statement seems to imply that you believe in the Open View. You seem to imply that Saul had the ability to make free will choices. Nice job! You continue,


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?

Notice the conditions in vv. 13-15. If the people and the king responded one way, God would also respond. If what you imply concerning this passage is true, how could God say,


1 Samuel 13
13:13
And Samuel said to Saul, "You have done foolishly. You have not kept the commandment of the Lord your God, which He commanded you. For now the Lord would have established your kingdom over Israel forever.
13:14
But now your kingdom shall not continue. The Lord has sought for Himself a man after His own heart, and the Lord has commanded him to be commander over His people, because you have not kept what the Lord commanded you."

You all seem to imply that God chose Saul, knowing that he would fail. Some take it further and say God predestined it to bring about a specific purpose. However, if Saul would have kept the Lord's commandments, his kingdom would have been established forever. This definitely presents a problem for those who say God knew Saul would fail. If God knew Saul would fail how could He make the above statement (1 Sam 13:13,14)? He could not... You continue,


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.

Again Solly, God chose Saul to be king. If Saul would have obeyed, his throne would have been established forever. That's what God hoped / expected from Saul. However, Saul disobeyed, and God repented that He made Saul king. When Saul had a false repentance and asked God to restore him to the throne, God said He would not repent of His decision to take the throne.

--Jeremy

*To everyone else... I apologize for starting this thread and not staying caught up. I have been busy and plan to respond to all of the posts here..

[Solly]

Today @ 08:27 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=70697#post70697)
Act9_12Out:

Solly,

You say,
Verse 7 shows that the people rejected God. The people rejected God and desired a king. The point you miss is that God handpicked Saul (1 Sam 10:24). Your next quote (v 18) shows God's disappointment when the people choose the king.

--Yes, he handpicked him. But you are trying to make something out of that handpicking. he was handpicked for the situation: there's this people who won't be ruled by me, they want a king. Hmmm, let's teach them something about human kings. If they want a king, they can have one, but on my terms.

Again, the problem here is, God chose Saul. The people did not. Your last statement seems to imply that you believe in the Open View. You seem to imply that Saul had the ability to make free will choices. Nice job! You continue,

--God picked a king the people would want: "look, he's heads and shoulders above the rest". Even Samuel made that mistake when sent to jesse's family. But God looks on the heart. The people did not. God looked on their hearts also, and gave them the desire of their hearts - which Christian experience will tell you isn't always what is good for us.
As for my favouring OVT, that merely shows that you do not understand Calvinism; and misses the point that I was commenting directly from the Biblical text, not from a prepared theological pov.

You all seem to imply that God chose Saul, knowing that he would fail. Some take it further and say God predestined it to bring about a specific purpose. However, if Saul would have kept the Lord's commandments, his kingdom would have been established forever. This definitely presents a problem for those who say God knew Saul would fail. If God knew Saul would fail how could He make the above statement (1 Sam 13:13,14)? He could not...

--He could. Saul was a responsible human being who had all the advantages, and still didn't take them. God knows we are "bad" material. that is what set David, who also failed, apart from Saul, who totally failed. By the same token, God let the ark be taken by the Philistines, to teach the people a lesson. Yes, God chose Saul to attain a certain object, but Saul made his own choices. This is the mystery of Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility which Calvinism, Arminianism and OVT all seek to address, but will never get to the bottom of.

Again Solly, God chose Saul to be king. If Saul would have obeyed, his throne would have been established forever. That's what God hoped / expected from Saul. However, Saul disobeyed, and God repented that He made Saul king. When Saul had a false repentance and asked God to restore him to the throne, God said He would not repent of His decision to take the throne.

--I really think you are missing the nuances of what happens in the narrative. By concentrating on the one issue of Saul's calling, you are letting your theology dicatate the results rather than following the thread [sic] of God's dealings with Israel. Each time they sinned, God did something a bit stronger, until eventually they went into exile. This is part of that chastisement. Saul was as much used by God for his purposes as Cyrus & Pharoah.
The asking of a king by the people of Israel was a rebellious and faithless act on their part. Yet you would have us believe that God would have established the kingdom under Saul's hand if he had been faithful. I pointed out from the text that God linked the people and king together. As the people were, so was Saul. He was one of them, and proved to be a rebellious king over a rebellious people. This sets the stage for David - the man after God's own heart. Saul looked after mules, David looked after sheep. Which proved the better grounding for being king?

[Act9_12Out]

Solly,

You accuse me of what you yourself do. You are driven by your theology too, and force presuppositions into the text. You fail to address many specific points. Again, how could God make this statement...


1 Samuel 13
13:13
And Samuel said to Saul, "You have done foolishly. You have not kept the commandment of the Lord your God, which He commanded you. For now the Lord would have established your kingdom over Israel forever.
13:14
But now your kingdom shall not continue. The Lord has sought for Himself a man after His own heart, and the Lord has commanded him to be commander over His people, because you have not kept what the Lord commanded you."

...if He already knew Saul would fail? God desired a man after His own heart. He thought Saul was that man. Saul disobeyed, so God took the throne from him. God then started over again with David. Isn't it interesting that God's choice of David turned out much better than His choice of Saul? Why didn't God just choose David from the get go? God looked at David's heart and saw that David was a man after His own heart. Saul failed over and over again. God did not make the bad choice, but rather responded to Saul's disobedience. Again, why did God "repent, have a change of mind, etc..." if He already knew Saul would fail?

--Jeremy

[Solly]

Today @ 10:23 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=70737#post70737)
Act9_12Out:

Solly,

You accuse me of what you yourself do. You are driven by your theology too, and force presuppositions into the text.

--I don't believe so, I have read the text in context, as opposed to taking the incident of Saul out of scripture and turning it into a philosophical debate.

God desired a man after His own heart.

--prove it in Saul's case.

He thought Saul was that man.

--prove it, in Saul's case.

Saul disobeyed, so God took the throne from him. God then started over again with David. Isn't it interesting that God's choice of David turned out much better than His choice of Saul? Why didn't God just choose David from the get go?

--he wasn't alive. Are you saying God had to learn something here? That the God who searches the hearts of all men didn't grasp the fundamental flaw in Saul's character? Then how was his judgment of David any better, rather than just lucky?

God looked at David's heart and saw that David was a man after His own heart.

--was that with or without grace?

Saul failed over and over again. God did not make the bad choice, but rather responded to Saul's disobedience.

--I never said God made a bad choice, for God. He made a "bad choice" on behalf of the people who had already rejected God as their king over them; he gave them what they wanted - a king instead of God.

Again, why did God "repent, have a change of mind, etc..." if He already knew Saul would fail?

--As mentioned, he changed from blessing to cursing.

[Act9_12Out]

Solly,

You say,


--I don't believe so, I have read the text in context, as opposed to taking the incident of Saul out of scripture and turning it into a philosophical debate.

My first post did not address the context because the topic showed that God chose Saul to be king, Saul disobeyed God's command to "utterly destroy" the Amalekites, and God repented that He made Saul king. You attempted to show that God chose a king for the people from their desire. The passage you quoted showed that "God would not hear the people" if the king they chose did evil and caused the people to grieve. However, God chose Saul. He looked at all of the men that were available, and chose Saul. I showed from the context that Saul's kingdom would have been "established forever" if Saul would have obeyed God. The calvinist view suggests that God already knew that Saul would fail, and therefore alrady knew He would be grieved at a later point in time. Again, you fail to address the fact that God would have established Saul's kingdom forever if Saul would have obeyed. God could not make that statement if He really would not have established Saul's throne forever. I do not make this a philosophical discussion, but rather take a literal reading of the text and it's context. The calvinists here suggest that philosophical idea of God's repentance being anthropomorphic / anthropopathic. When God said He was grieved concerning choosing Saul as king (1 Samuel 15:11, 35), that's exactly what it means. When God said He would not repent concerning taking the throne from Saul, that's what He meant (1 Samuel 15:29).


--prove it in Saul's case.

That was the whole point of choosing a king. Let's re-read 1 Samuel 13:13,14 and please respond this time.


13:13
And Samuel said to Saul, "You have done foolishly. You have not kept the commandment of the Lord your God, which He commanded you. For now the Lord would have established your kingdom over Israel forever.
13:14
But now your kingdom shall not continue. The Lord has sought for Himself a man after His own heart, and the Lord has commanded him to be commander over His people, because you have not kept what the Lord commanded you."

This was God's desire. To find a man that sought after His heart. Saul was not that man.


--he wasn't alive. Are you saying God had to learn something here? That the God who searches the hearts of all men didn't grasp the fundamental flaw in Saul's character? Then how was his judgment of David any better, rather than just lucky?

God responded to the free will choices of Saul. Saul was a righteous man who turned away from God and rejected Him. God took the throne that would have been established forever from Saul. This is perfectly in line with Scripture concerning individuals and nations (Jer 18, Eze 18).


Ezekiel 18
18:21
"But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die.
18:22
None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; because of the righteousness which he has done, he shall live.
18:24
"But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that the wicked man does, shall he live? All the righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; because of the unfaithfulness of which he is guilty and the sin which he has committed, because of them he shall die.

God responds to man's free-will actions. Saul was a righteous king who freely chose to reject God's commands numerous times. Finally, when God commanded Saul to "utterly destroy" the Amalekites, and Saul disobeyed, God was grieved and repented that He set Saul as king. God took the throne from saul.


--I never said God made a bad choice, for God. He made a "bad choice" on behalf of the people who had already rejected God as their king over them; he gave them what they wanted - a king instead of God.

Yes, a king that was good in the beginning and then disobeyed God. God repented that He made Saul king because of Saul's disobedience. God did not predestine, know or desire that Saul would disobey when He chose him. When Saul did disobey, God was truly grieved.


--As mentioned, he changed from blessing to cursing.

Was that a predestined blessing and predestined cursing?

God reacts to mans free will choices. As stated above, if a righteous man rejects God, he dies. If a wicked man repents and trusts in God, he lives. God does the same where nations are concerned.


Jeremiah 18
18:7
The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it,
18:8
if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will repent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it.
18:9
And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it,
18:10
if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will repent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.

Again, God responds to man's / nation's free will choices. When God chooses to destroy a nation, and they repent, He repents and blesses them. When a nation that is good does evil, God repents of the good He said He would do.

--Jeremy

[Solly]

Jeremy,

My first post did not address the context because the topic showed that God chose Saul to be king, Saul disobeyed God's command to "utterly destroy" the Amalekites, and God repented that He made Saul king. You attempted to show that God chose a king for the people from their desire. The passage you quoted showed that "God would not hear the people" if the king they chose did evil and caused the people to grieve.

--Sorry A9, but nuances seem to be lost on you. He would not hear them favourably, to their good; they took the Ark out, expecting God to hear them, and he didn't. He did hear what they were really saying in the case of having a king, and he responded to that. Yet he is also God, and seeks to save his people, and tells Samuel: He shall save my people from the hand of the Philistines. 1 Sam 9.16 ESV

However, God chose Saul. He looked at all of the men that were available, and chose Saul.

--Did he? This is eisegesis.

I showed from the context that Saul's kingdom would have been "established forever" if Saul would have obeyed God.

--This does not undermine the idea that he was chosen for a reason, and that reason was Israel's failure.

The calvinist view suggests that God already knew that Saul would fail, and therefore alrady knew He would be grieved at a later point in time.

--You are an expert on this?

Again, you fail to address the fact that God would have established Saul's kingdom forever if Saul would have obeyed. God could not make that statement if He really would not have established Saul's throne forever.

--This is like all the comments of God in the OT. if you do this, I will do that. it highlights even more the failure and loss of israel, a rebellious and stiffnecked people.

I do not make this a philosophical discussion, but rather take a literal reading of the text and it's context.

--I am not sure you have. you have come at it to disprove Calvinism and prove OVT.

“ --prove it in Saul's case. ”

13:14 But now your kingdom shall not continue. The Lord has sought for Himself a man after His own heart, and the Lord has commanded him to be commander over His people, because you have not kept what the Lord commanded you." ”

--This tells me beforehand what is going to happen. God will chose David. Show how this can be applied to Saul? God went on to call Solomon his son; will you read this back to David, and Saul?

This was God's desire. To find a man that sought after His heart.

--You are generalising. It was his desire after Saul had visibly failed. Saul was the provision for a nation that had rejected God.

God responded to the free will choices of Saul. Saul was a righteous man...

--He was? By what standard? Of grace? As for Free Will, Calvinists seem to have a better time at balancing God's sovereignty and man's moral volition than others. What is free will after all? Why add the adjective "free". Free from what, or for what? All have sinned, all are dead in sin, how can any serve God truly, without Grace? Saul died an unregenerate man who never called upon God as a believer, no matter how "righteous" he was in the eyes of men.

“ --I never said God made a bad choice, for God. He made a "bad choice" on behalf of the people who had already rejected God as their king over them; he gave them what they wanted - a king instead of God. ”

Yes, a king that was good in the beginning and then disobeyed God.

--Define good. that he did some things appropriately? He was a sinner. There is none good but God.

God repented that He made Saul king because of Saul's disobedience. God did not predestine, know or desire that Saul would disobey when He chose him. When Saul did disobey, God was truly grieved.

--Whatever. I believe that God searches the hearts of men, and knows that we are all sinners. You view, while obviously not that, borders on Pelagianism to my mind, for we hear nothing of the difference between Grace and Nature; all we hear is free will. This is your philosophical presuppositions coming thru, and I am not obliged to accept them. If you chose to believe that God can be caught out, that is up to you.

Was that a predestined blessing and predestined cursing?

--A predestined blessing? We are talking about natural judgments here, that also reflect higher spiritual matters. If Saul was not predestined to be saved, then he gets the curse of all fallen men. As an unregenerate man, he failed to obey God, and was judged with death. But he was not without excuse, he had every opportunity, including Samuel at his right hand. He is the picture of the failure of man left to his own devices.

God reacts to mans free will choices. As stated above, if a righteous man rejects God, he dies. If a wicked man repents and trusts in God, he lives. God does the same where nations are concerned.
Again, God responds to man's / nation's free will choices. When God chooses to destroy a nation, and they repent, He repents and blesses them. When a nation that is good does evil, God repents of the good He said He would do.

--presuppositions again.

regards.
Tony

Btw, Easter Blessings, I will be away until Tuesday.

[Gyurkovitz]

Solly and Blake, great job, I have only one objection. Solly, where is the scriptural basis for an "age of accountability"?

[Solly]

Today @ 04:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=70913#post70913)
Gyurkovitz:

Solly and Blake, great job, I have only one objection. Solly, where is the scriptural basis for an "age of accountability"?

Hi Gyurkovitz

Sorry, you lost me on that one. What is the relevance of it to this discussion? :hrm:

[nomad]

re: age of accountability...

in case you need one, the closest i have found in scripture is isaiah 7:10-16. though it is not at all clear.

there is a long jewish tradition, but beyond that i haven't found much.

a friend uses jesus' statements about 'forbid not the little children to come to me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven' to support this (if 'of such is the kingdom of heaven', why wouldn't jesus accept children who aren't old enough yet?). it works for me, but it's not really proof.

[Blake Reas]

This is for the Open Theist who usually makes the claim that God does not act in the world. This will not only answer many questions as it has in my mind but also makes a plausible scheme for how Calvinist view God acting in History which I acknowledge has been propounded by people like Bavnick, Calvin, and most recently Horton, it is actually the view held by all reformed people to my knowledge, anyway.
From my experience in reading and discussing the issue of Soveriegnty with Open Theist I notice that they take the position that God is not really acting in History if the Calvinist view is true, because he has ordained everything that comes to pass. This is not true and I will support the contention that God really does work with his creation in a "reciporcal" relationship. I will use some biblical arguments against the OV verses but this is really just a more of a philosophical/theological view of how to view God. There are two approaches I believe that are taken in this issue. One I will call the Mouse Trap interpretation of Calvinist that is voiced by Open Theist (which is really a Straw man) and the Calvinist view which is that of Divine Drama. I know that all analogies break down at some point but that does not mean that they do not reveal something of maybe how God works.

Mouse Trap Interpretation
As a kid I remember playing the game of Mouse trap. You would set the game up push a button and let it go. This is how many Open View Theist interpret Calvinism and people who have a misunderstanding of it in General. This is flawed thinking and wrong. Calvin compared the world and the universe to the theater but I prefer Divine Drama.

Divine Drama
This is the view of all Calvinist I know of. God decides to create the world and ordain whatever shall come to pass but this is not to be understood in Mouse Trap terms it is to be understood as God making his mind up about what will come to pass. God then starts through out History and makes everything go according to his purpose and will, He works with us in history. The repentance passages are all explained by this view. God in his mind has already sovereignly decided how Abraham would respond and how Hezekiah would respond. For instance we see in 2 Kings 20:1-8:



20:1 In those days Hezekiah became sick and was at the point of death. The prophet Isaiah son of Amoz came to him, and said to him, "Thus says the Lord: Set your house in order, for you shall die; you shall not recover."
20:2 Then Hezekiah turned his face to the wall and prayed to the Lord:
20:3 "Remember now, O Lord, I implore you, how I have walked before you in faithfulness with a whole heart, and have done what is good in your sight." Hezekiah wept bitterly.
20:4 Before Isaiah had gone out of the middle court, the word of the Lord came to him:
20:5 "Turn back, and say to Hezekiah prince of my people, Thus says the Lord, the God of your ancestor David: I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; indeed, I will heal you; on the third day you shall go up to the house of the Lord.
20:6 I will add fifteen years to your life. I will deliver you and this city out of the hand of the king of Assyria; I will defend this city for my own sake and for my servant David's sake."
20:7 Then Isaiah said, "Bring a lump of figs. Let them take it and apply it to the boil, so that he may recover."
20:8 Hezekiah said to Isaiah, "What shall be the sign that the Lord will heal me, and that I shall go up to the house of the Lord on the third day?"


Why ever did God “change” his mind? Did he really change his mind? Or was it something planned from the beginning? I would say it is the latter. Here is why God changed his mind and why it is portrayed this way in scripture. We will go to 2 Chronicles 32:24-26:

24 In those days Hezekiah became sick and was at the point of death. He prayed to the Lord, and he answered him and gave him a sign. 25 But Hezekiah did not respond according to the benefit done to him, for his heart was proud. Therefore wrath came upon him and upon Judah and Jerusalem. 26 Then Hezekiah humbled himself for the pride of his heart, both he and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the wrath of the Lord did not come upon them in the days of Hezekiah.

God used his warning that is spoken of in Kings to make Hezekiah respond! It is not because God did not have it plan it was God wanted Hezekiah to be included into his unfolding Drama. That is why God warned him and wanted him to humble himself and later on in the chapter it talks of the rest of Hezekiah’s great works God clearly had a purpose for the extra 15 years. Also surely the Open Theist does not want to interpret 2 Chronicles 32: 31 here is why:


31 So also in the matter of the envoys of the officials of Babylon, who had been sent to him to inquire about the sign that had been done in the land, God left him to himself, in order to test him and to know all that was in his heart.

If we interpret this passage with a “straight forward reading” do we not get the fact that God does not know the heart of Hezekiah exhaustively? What many Open Theist say and what Scripture clearly teaches? This is a dangerous teaching and it leads to these kind of reductions, in fact Clark Pinnock has even toyed with the Idea that God is Corporeal in some sense because of the passages that speak of God’s hands and feet. This is in no way to say that Open Theist here on Tweb hold to this but I am saying that this is what it will lead to when the Hermeneutic is consistently applied.
So as we have seen in this little portion of what I could say more one the traditional interpretation should not just be thrown out the window. There is a reason why many Christians since the EFC’s held this view and to throw away 1900 years of Church history and about 1500 years of Judaism before that, is ridicoulous. The rabbis also spoke of Anthropomorphic language just as Calvinist an traditional Arminians do today.

Conclusion
Some will complain that the divine drama motif still makes us nothing but “puppets” I would interject the need for mystery in how God deals with us since we can never under stand God in se (in himself) but only through a dark glass. We see a glimpse of God in the analogical (in the reformed since) language of scripture we should glory in the fact that God has made himself known. The language of scripture is accommodated to us because there is no way a infinite God could ever communicate with us in a Univocal manner He is beyond us. We do not know what it is like to be Omnipotent, Onipresent, or have perfect knowledge of the Future so yes God does repent but not in the way a man does he is grieved but not in the exact same way a man grieves.

By His Grace For His Glory
Blake:poke:

[joelkaki]

Excellent post!


Joel

[Act9_12Out]

Solly,

You say,


--Sorry A9, but nuances seem to be lost on you. He would not hear them favourably, to their good; they took the Ark out, expecting God to hear them, and he didn't. He did hear what they were really saying in the case of having a king, and he responded to that. Yet he is also God, and seeks to save his people, and tells Samuel: He shall save my people from the hand of the Philistines. 1 Sam 9.16 ESV

This is inconsistent from the calvinistic view of prescience / predestination...


I said, However, God chose Saul. He looked at all of the men that were available, and chose Saul.

solly replies, --Did he? This is eisegesis.

No, this is clearly shown in Scripoture...


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!"

Sorry solly, no eisegesis here. All of the tribes of Israel came near. The tribe of Benjamin, family of Matri and ultimately Saul was chosen by God. How much clearer can this be?


I said,I showed from the context that Saul's kingdom would have been established forever if Saul would have obeyed God.

Solly replies, --This does not undermine the idea that he was chosen for a reason, and that reason was Israel's failure.

How can this be? Did God really mean that He would have established Saul's kingdom forever, or did God not really mean what He said since solly's reasoning suggests the reason was Israel's failure. Talk about eisegesis...


I said, The calvinist view suggests that God already knew that Saul would fail, and therefore alrady knew He would be grieved at a later point in time.

solly replies, --You are an expert on this?

No, I let the calvinist "experts" here speak for themselves. Fell free to read the first few pages to see that this is what they say...


I said, Again, you fail to address the fact that God would have established Saul's kingdom forever if Saul would have obeyed. God could not make that statement if He really would not have established Saul's throne forever.

solly replies, --This is like all the comments of God in the OT. if you do this, I will do that. it highlights even more the failure and loss of israel, a rebellious and stiffnecked people.

Sorry solly, but this directly contradicts the calvinistic view of prescience / predestination. You are presenting an antinomy here...


I said, I do not make this a philosophical discussion, but rather take a literal reading of the text and it's context.

solly's conjecture says, --I am not sure you have. you have come at it to disprove Calvinism and prove OVT.

And what is your purpose for your theological view and your presentations here? You imply that discussing a passage from contradictory points of view is a negative thing...


13:14 But now your kingdom shall not continue. The Lord has sought for Himself a man after His own heart, and the Lord has commanded him to be commander over His people, because you have not kept what the Lord commanded you." ”

solly --This tells me beforehand what is going to happen. God will chose David. Show how this can be applied to Saul? God went on to call Solomon his son; will you read this back to David, and Saul?

I said, This was God's desire. To find a man that sought after His heart.

solly replies --You are generalising. It was his desire after Saul had visibly failed. Saul was the provision for a nation that had rejected God.

solly, God did not take the throne from Saul until 1 Samuel 15. You comment is unfounded.


I said, God responded to the free will choices of Saul. Saul was a righteous man...

solly replies, --He was? By what standard? Of grace? As for Free Will, Calvinists seem to have a better time at balancing God's sovereignty and man's moral volition than others. What is free will after all? Why add the adjective free. Free from what, or for what? All have sinned, all are dead in sin, how can any serve God truly, without Grace? Saul died an unregenerate man who never called upon God as a believer, no matter how righteous he was in the eyes of men.

Here's the problem... You force your preconceived calvinistic ideas into this passage. You approach the Scriptures with a preconceived idea based in your TULIP.


solly said,“ --I never said God made a bad choice, for God. He made a "bad choice" on behalf of the people who had already rejected God as their king over them; he gave them what they wanted - a king instead of God. ”

I responded, Yes, a king that was good in the beginning and then disobeyed God.

solly replies, --Define good. that he did some things appropriately? He was a sinner. There is none good but God.

Obfuscation... The point still is... God chose Saul to be king. God would have established Saul's throne forever. Saul disobeyed, and God took the throne from Saul. It's very clear...


I said, God repented that He made Saul king because of Saul's disobedience. God did not predestine, know or desire that Saul would disobey when He chose him. When Saul did disobey, God was truly grieved.

solly says, --Whatever. I believe that God searches the hearts of men, and knows that we are all sinners. You view, while obviously not that, borders on Pelagianism to my mind, for we hear nothing of the difference between Grace and Nature; all we hear is free will. This is your philosophical presuppositions coming thru, and I am not obliged to accept them. If you chose to believe that God can be caught out, that is up to you.

Just as you believe that God predestines some to hell for His own pleasure... We must examine the Scriptures to see who's view is more Biblical. In my opinion, you have done nothing to prove your point.


I asked, Was that a predestined blessing and predestined cursing?

solly replies, --A predestined blessing? We are talking about natural judgments here, that also reflect higher spiritual matters. If Saul was not predestined to be saved, then he gets the curse of all fallen men. As an unregenerate man, he failed to obey God, and was judged with death. But he was not without excuse, he had every opportunity, including Samuel at his right hand. He is the picture of the failure of man left to his own devices.

You have just affirmed my previous statement. Your conjecture attempts to show that God did not "predestine" Saul to be saved. However, Scripture never suggests that. In fact, Scripture shows the opposite. God handpicked Saul. God would have established Saul's kingdom forever as long as Saul obeyed God. Saul freely disobey God, and God took the throne from him. My conjecture would be that if Saul would have truly been repentant, God would have restored him to his throne (King Manessah is an excellent example of this). However, Saul has a false repentance and blames "the people" for his sin. God will not change His mind concerning taking the throne from Saul.


I said, God reacts to mans free will choices. As stated above, if a righteous man rejects God, he dies. If a wicked man repents and trusts in God, he lives. God does the same where nations are concerned.
Again, God responds to man's / nation's free will choices. When God chooses to destroy a nation, and they repent, He repents and blesses them. When a nation that is good does evil, God repents of the good He said He would do.

solly replies, --presuppositions again.

Are you serious? I guess you did not read the passages I supplied to confirm this. Jeremiah 18 and Ezekiel 18 both show how God responds to man's free-will choices.

Resurrection Day blessings to you also Tony,

--Jeremy

[Act9_12Out]

Blake,

From your previous post, you make God a liar. You suggest that when God told Hezekiah to set his house in order because he would surely die, God didn't really mean that...


2 Kings 20
1 In those days Hezekiah was sick and near death. And Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, went to him and said to him, “Thus says the Lord: ‘Set your house in order, for you shall die, and not live.’ ”

How can God make this statement if He "already knew" Hezekiah would ask for forgiveness?

Secondly, you suggest that since the OV teaches that God searches the hearts of men, that this somehow hurts us? God searches the present state of man's heart. Man's heart condition changes constantly depending upon circumstances. King Manessah is a great example. He was an evil King. God saw his present heart, and brought the Assyrian army against him. As King Manessah was being carried off, God looked at his present heart condition, saw that he was repentant, and restored him to his throne. Let's read it...


2 Chronicles 33
1 Manasseh was twelve years old when he became king, and he reigned fifty-five years in Jerusalem.
2 But he did evil in the sight of the Lord, according to the abominations of the nations whom the Lord had cast out before the children of Israel.
3 For he rebuilt the high places which Hezekiah his father had broken down; he raised up altars for the Baals, and made wooden images; and he worshiped all the host of heaven and served them.
4 He also built altars in the house of the Lord, of which the Lord had said, “In Jerusalem shall My name be forever.”
5 And he built altars for all the host of heaven in the two courts of the house of the Lord.
6 Also he caused his sons to pass through the fire in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom; he practiced soothsaying, used witchcraft and sorcery, and consulted mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the sight of the Lord, to provoke Him to anger.
7 He even set a carved image, the idol which he had made, in the house of God, of which God had said to David and to Solomon his son, “In this house and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, I will put My name forever;
8 “and I will not again remove the foot of Israel from the land which I have appointed for your fathers—only if they are careful to do all that I have commanded them, according to the whole law and the statutes and the ordinances by the hand of Moses.”
9 So Manasseh seduced Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem to do more evil than the nations whom the Lord had destroyed before the children of Israel.
10 And the Lord spoke to Manasseh and his people, but they would not listen.
11 Therefore the Lord brought upon them the captains of the army of the king of Assyria, who took Manasseh with hooks, bound him with bronze fetters, and carried him off to Babylon.
12 Now when he was in affliction, he implored the Lord his God, and humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers,
13 and prayed to Him; and He received his entreaty, heard his supplication, and brought him back to Jerusalem into his kingdom. Then Manasseh knew that the Lord was God.

Now I ask, why would God restore Manessah and not Saul? Manessah was much more wicked than Saul... The answer? Manessah had a truly repentant heart and Saul did not. The point is, God looked at each of His king's present hearts, and acted accordingly (Jer 18, Eze 18).

--Jeremy

[Blake Reas]

Yesterday @ 10:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=73467#post73467)
Act9_12Out:

Blake,

[quote]From your previous post, you make God a liar. You suggest that when God told Hezekiah to set his house in order because he would surely die, God didn't really mean that...


“ 2 Kings 20
1 In those days Hezekiah was sick and near death. And Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, went to him and said to him, “Thus says the Lord: ‘Set your house in order, for you shall die, and not live.’ ”


True, but it does not make God a liar you misunderstood the whole post. Like I said to get a response to further God's ends. Do you read? I answered that in my post. Now to the real crux of the issue you think this makes God a liar. Well I ask you this does it make a script writer a liar if he puts himself in his own drama? I don't think so! Also you are dealing with an Omnipotent God who is quite a bit different than us therefore you have no idea what it is like to be eternal also since you are assuming that God is in time I will really let you get your panties in a tiz by telling you I think he is OUTSIDE of time. So it really causes no problems when I view it in this light.




How can God make this statement if He "already knew" Hezekiah would ask for forgiveness?

Yes he could I do not see a problem with it. God is moving history along at his own pace and working out his foreordained plan through his creatures.


Secondly, you suggest that since the OV tea aches that God searches the hearts of men, that this somehow hurts us? God searches the present state of man's heart. Man's heart condition changes constantly depending upon circumstances. King Manessah is a great example. He was an evil King. God saw his present heart, and brought the Assyrian army against him. As King Manessah was being carried off, God looked at his present heart condition, saw that he was repentant, and restored him to his throne. Let's read it...

I think that you are missing my point about God not knowing Hezekiah's heart. We are talking present knowledge here if God has to search Hezekiah's heart at every second then he really never knows anyones heart fully nor can he really know any present action fully. This works against you since you said that God has to make sure that everyones hearts are right doesn't he have to search them over and over and over again? What about Abraham? Surely since he had "free-will" he would have kept God guessing God would not just had to check his heart about sacrificing Isaac, but over and over again. I mean if Abraham was truly free in your sense then how did God know that Abraham was going to carry out his covenant plan? I guess you could always revert back to the tactic of saying God intervenes and takes freedom away but then you are back to Compatabalism which makes me wonder why you even are worried about freedom (that is if you are Boydian).


“ 2 Chronicles 33
1 Manasseh was twelve years old when he became king, and he reigned fifty-five years in Jerusalem.
2 But he did evil in the sight of the Lord, according to the abominations of the nations whom the Lord had cast out before the children of Israel.
3 For he rebuilt the high places which Hezekiah his father had broken down; he raised up altars for the Baals, and made wooden images; and he worshiped all the host of heaven and served them.
4 He also built altars in the house of the Lord, of which the Lord had said, “In Jerusalem shall My name be forever.”
5 And he built altars for all the host of heaven in the two courts of the house of the Lord.
6 Also he caused his sons to pass through the fire in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom; he practiced soothsaying, used witchcraft and sorcery, and consulted mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the sight of the Lord, to provoke Him to anger.
7 He even set a carved image, the idol which he had made, in the house of God, of which God had said to David and to Solomon his son, “In this house and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, I will put My name forever;
8 “and I will not again remove the foot of Israel from the land which I have appointed for your fathers—only if they are careful to do all that I have commanded them, according to the whole law and the statutes and the ordinances by the hand of Moses.”
9 So Manasseh seduced Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem to do more evil than the nations whom the Lord had destroyed before the children of Israel.
10 And the Lord spoke to Manasseh and his people, but they would not listen.
11 Therefore the Lord brought upon them the captains of the army of the king of Assyria, who took Manasseh with hooks, bound him with bronze fetters, and carried him off to Babylon.
12 Now when he was in affliction, he implored the Lord his God, and humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers,
13 and prayed to Him; and He received his entreaty, heard his supplication, and brought him back to Jerusalem into his kingdom. Then Manasseh knew that the Lord was God.

I am going to tell you the same exact thing I told you before ACTs 9 which you do not seem to get. God uses these warnings and moves armies to get a response from Manessah to repent. It is again how God is working through his creatures to bring about his predtermined plan if you have a problem with this I do not know what to tell you.


Now I ask, why would God restore Manessah and not Saul? Manessah was much more wicked than Saul... The answer? Manessah had a truly repentant heart and Saul did not. The point is, God looked at each of His king's present hearts, and acted accordingly (Jer 18, Eze 18).

Again, I would answer the same way I have been along. God is in complete control of the situation he makes Mannessah's heart truly repentant, you see you are assuming libertarianism the whole time. God also made it to where Saul would fall but Saul still had his present "freedom" and he just acted on his evil desires. So again your objections really cause no problems for my view whatever.


Postscript: Act9 I find if funny that you do not mention something that is very important to these text about Hezekiah. Before the Lord renewed Hezekiah he had no son therefore he had no one to take over the throne! We read in 2nd Kings 21:1 that


Manasseh was twelve years old when he began to reign, and he reigned fifty-five years in Jerusalem.

Know if I am reading this correctly God added 15 years to Hezekiah's life. That would mean that Hezekiah would not have had a son before the 15 years. I will do the math for you because I do not know if you could do it yourself. 15-12=3 now if my interpretation is true (i am sure you will find away to explain it away) then God had a very distinct reason in not letting Hezekiah die because if he did die before his 15 years was up then the line of David would be in trouble and then the Messiah would not have come from the line of David! You have a big problem on your hands here. Lets see what Matthew Henry has to say about this:


There was also something peculiar in Hezekiah’s case[./i]: he was now in the midst of his usefulness, had begun a good work of reformation, which he feared would, through the corruption of the people, fall to the ground, if he should die. [b]If this was before the defeat of the Assyrian army, as some think, he might therefore be loth to die, because his kingdom was in imminent danger of being ruined. [i]However, it does not appear that he had now any son: Manasseh, that succeeded him, was not born till three years after; and, if he should die childless, both the peace of his kingdom and the promise to David would be in danger.


So if Hezekiah was to die there would be NO Heir to the throne! That would not be good at all. Wait there is more and I will let someone else who is a Calvinist speak also to show that we can deal with these passages. But first I would like to make the point that you cannot escape your own criticism!

The Openness view must also deal with the fact that God said something was going to happen which did not happen. The Open theist concludes that God spoke out of ignorance because He did not know Hezekiah would pray with such passion and fervency as to change the divine plan.Since God did not know, there is no moral dilemma in His reverasl of His announced plans. The classical Theist concludes that God's threat carried an implicit exception and that He did know that Hezekiah would repent and pray. Thus god intended all along to extend the king's life fifteen years and to do it in response to prayer. The classical view is supported by the broader context of this story. When Hezekiah died, his son Manasseh, who was twelve years old, became king in his place (2 kings. 20:21, 21:1). What this means is that Manasseh was born during the fifteen-year extension of Hezekiah's life. Sanders says that if Hezekiah had not prayed to God, "biblical history would have been different." But that is a woefully inadequate understatement. Had Hezekiah died when Isaiah first spoke to him, he would have left no heir to the throne and the promise that God made to David three hundred years earlier would have been broken. The Lord had promised David, "You shall not lack a man on the throne of Israel (1 Kings 2:4), which simply affirms that the posterity of David was not to be cut off, so as to leave no offshoot which could take possession of the throne.

If as you contend, God was ignorant of the timing of Hezekiah's death when He sent Isaiah to him, then we are left with insurmountable doubts about the Lord's faithfullness. Had Hezekiah died before his son Manasseh was born, God's word would have failed. If god cannot be trusted to do what He says, why ask him to do anything!? [1]
So as you have been shown to have your pants down again! :
:whip:


By His Grace For His Glory
Blake
1 paraphrased from Bound Only Once pg. 185 the quote also came from that book.
:whip:

[Blake Reas]

[B] THE DIVINE DRAMA ROLLS ON! ACT_9 complete your part in it![B] :deal:

I forgot to add that if what I said above is true the Open Theist can no longer use 2nd Kings 20:1-5 as proof of their position and be honest. So if I see you use it I will poke you with a branch like this :poke: .

By His Grace For His Glory
Blake

[Blake Reas]

Here is a long but helpful article this was published way before the Open Theism controversey really exploded. It was around but it was not discussed as much as it is now.
http://thirdmill.org/files/english/theology/81968~5_24_99_9-21-50_PM~Pratt.Historical_Contingencies.pdf

By His Grace For His Glory
Blake

[Solly]

X9

You say,

This is inconsistent from the calvinistic view of prescience / predestination...

--Since this is a discussion that has boiled down to the differences between Calvinism and Dispensational OVT I think it best to let the Calvinists say what is and is not consistant with Calvinism, and you can do the same for x9 OVT Disp.

X9--I said, However, God chose Saul. He looked at all of the men that were available, and chose Saul. solly replies, --Did he? This is eisegesis. ”
No, this is clearly shown in Scripoture...
“1 Samuel 10:19-24
Sorry solly, no eisegesis here. All of the tribes of Israel came near. The tribe of Benjamin, family of Matri and ultimately Saul was chosen by God. How much clearer can this be?

--This clear, you are confusing yourself. One minute you tell us God chose Saul, now you say the people did. God singled out Saul, without public representation, in ch 9. I have already pointed out that he chose the king they deserved and desired in their rebellion against God. He knew their hearts, and gave them the desire of their hearts, just as he had done when they murmured in the wilderness, and he gave them quail until it came out of their noses. Note esp: 1Sa 10:23 And they ran and fetched him thence: and when he stood among the people, he was higher than any of the people from his shoulders and upward.
1Sa 10:24 And Samuel said to all the people, See ye him whom the LORD hath chosen, that [there is] none like him among all the people? And all the people shouted, and said, God save the king.
That seems to me to be a very limited choice, and a very intentional one. The fact that he was tall seemed to override the fact that the man was hiding even though he had God's call upon him, and had been previously anointed.

x9--Did God really mean that He would have established Saul's kingdom forever, or did God not really mean what He said since solly's reasoning suggests the reason was Israel's failure. Talk about eisegesis...

--When God says that he will do something, it is usually in the context of our doing something too. "If you will be obedient in the land, I will bless you..." Yes, if Saul had been obedient, God would have blessed him. It makes his rebellion all the worse, and the people's, who had already deserted God - please bear that fact in mind, this whle section takes place following the rejection of God as their king. You do not understand the Reformed doctrines as they respect our responsibility towards God our Creator and Judge. The fact that we have trapped ourselves through our sin does not invalidate His claim upon us for obedience. Inveterate rebels are still rebels and will still be punished. Saul had a clear, natural command from God, to be king and serve God. He didn't do it. He didn't want to do it. He had every opportunity to do it. The context of his being placed as king was the prior rebellion of the people who also did not want to do it, as they had consistently fialed to do since leaving Egypt.

X9--“I said, Again, you fail to address the fact that God would have established Saul's kingdom forever if Saul would have obeyed. God could not make that statement if He really would not have established Saul's throne forever. solly replies, --This is like all the comments of God in the OT. if you do this, I will do that. it highlights even more the failure and loss of israel, a rebellious and stiffnecked people. ”
Sorry solly, but this directly contradicts the calvinistic view of prescience / predestination. You are presenting an antinomy here...

--Please don't tell me what I do and don't believe. you are no more an expert on Reformed theology, than I am on OVT or Dispensationalism.

X9--And what is your purpose for your theological view and your presentations here? You imply that discussing a passage from contradictory points of view is a negative thing...

--Actually, I have sought to consider this matter from the text itself, as you have said you do. I have deliberately tried not to stretch or clip it to fit the procrustean bed of my Calvinist convictions, which must always give way before the text itself. In fact, I am more enamoured of the Biblical Theology view and its contextual readings, than of systematic doctrinal pronouncements that expect scriptures to slot into place. It just so happens i have sen little to alter my Calvinist convictions. My part in this discussion is not to shoot down opposing doctrinal views, but to uphold the mesaage of the text in the face of doctrinal distortions on any side.

X9--“13:14 But now your kingdom shall not continue. The Lord has sought for Himself a man after His own heart, and the Lord has commanded him to be commander over His people, because you have not kept what the Lord commanded you." ” solly --This tells me beforehand what is going to happen. God will chose David. Show how this can be applied to Saul? God went on to call Solomon his son; will you read this back to David, and Saul? I said, This was God's desire. To find a man that sought after His heart. solly replies --You are generalising. It was his desire after Saul had visibly failed. Saul was the provision for a nation that had rejected God.”
solly, God did not take the throne from Saul until 1 Samuel 15. You comment is unfounded.

--Don't follow you here. What do you mean?

X9--Here's the problem... You force your preconceived calvinistic ideas into this passage. You approach the Scriptures with a preconceived idea based in your TULIP.

--Saying it, don't make it so. It seems to me any reading of the text that happened to accord with Reformed theology would be rejected.

*repetition*

X9--Just as you believe that God predestines some to hell for His own pleasure... We must examine the Scriptures to see who's view is more Biblical. In my opinion, you have done nothing to prove your point.

--This comment shows that you should not be telling me what is and is not consistent with Calvinsim, as it brings in the usual straw man and reveals a misunderstanding of the Reformed doctrine of reprobation.

*repetition*

X9--Are you serious? I guess you did not read the passages I supplied to confirm this. Jeremiah 18 and Ezekiel 18 both show how God responds to man's free-will choices.

--How often we hear those on all sides saying, I posted such and such that proves what I have stated.
It is not proven until someone accepts it as proof, until someone is convinced by it. It is convincing to you, but not to us.

regards
Tony

[seer]

As far as Hezekiah goes Blake,when God told him he was about to die:

"In those days Hezekiah was sick and near death. And Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, went to him and said to him,'“Thus says the Lord: ‘Set your house in order, for you shall die, and not live.’ ”

Was God being truthful?

[Solly]

Isn't it strange how everything which God says seems to have universal and unbinding significance to some, rather than just being relevant to the issue at hand. God said Hezekiah will die, so that's it: you're dead Hezekiah. Why this failure to understand that Reformed theology can handle real-time interactions between men and God, without turning into OVT?

Is Hezekiah going to die?

Yes, he has a fatal illness. Left to himself, he will die.

Was God lying?

No. Hezekiah was going to die in the normal course of his illness.

Did God have an ace up his sleeve, which he was not obliged to reveal, and which he did so after receiving an appropriate response from Hezzy?

YES!!

Why?


Isa 38:10 I said in the cutting off of my days, I shall go to the gates of the grave: I am deprived of the residue of my years.
Isa 38:11 I said, I shall not see the LORD, [even] the LORD, in the land of the living: I shall behold man no more with the inhabitants of the world.
Isa 38:12 Mine age is departed, and is removed from me as a shepherd's tent: I have cut off like a weaver my life: he will cut me off with pining sickness: from day [even] to night wilt thou make an end of me.
Isa 38:13 I reckoned till morning, [that], as a lion, so will he break all my bones: from day [even] to night wilt thou make an end of me.
Isa 38:14 Like a crane [or] a swallow, so did I chatter: I did mourn as a dove: mine eyes fail [with looking] upward: O LORD, I am oppressed; undertake for me.
Isa 38:15 What shall I say? he hath both spoken unto me, and himself hath done [it]: I shall go softly all my years in the bitterness of my soul.
Isa 38:16 O Lord, by these [things men] live, and in all these [things is] the life of my spirit: so wilt thou recover me, and make me to live.
Isa 38:17 Behold, for peace I had great bitterness: but thou hast in love to my soul [delivered it] from the pit of corruption: for thou hast cast all my sins behind thy back.
Isa 38:18 For the grave cannot praise thee, death can [not] celebrate thee: they that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth.
Isa 38:19 The living, the living, he shall praise thee, as I [do] this day: the father to the children shall make known thy truth.
Isa 38:20 The LORD [was ready] to save me: therefore we will sing my songs to the stringed instruments all the days of our life in the house of the LORD.


God's glory, on the lips of a saved sinner; and instruction to the people of God on how to face difficult situations.

Secondly; I expect my son to ask my forgiveness when he does wrong. It may take chastisment/punishment to get him to that point, but my forgiveness is guaranteed, despite what he thinks. Was my punishment unjustified? Was my making him seek it unjustified? How much more so God, who is seeking the improvement of our souls and our communion with him. Why must he fully declare his hand before hand? Why shouldn't he let men see the consequences before he does something? Would Hezzy's response to God as recorded in Isa 38 been as great or grateful if God had just said, on Hezzy receiving the news, "It's alright, I've got it covered, you'll be ok in a day or two."

[Xmansmommy]

Great thread guys! I am enjoying all the comments being made here. Thanks for each of you who have been participating. :thumb:

[Solly]

Applause from the audience is always welcome Xmom. :cheers:

[Xmansmommy]

:cheers: Solly! Just wanted to let those of you who are participating know that some of us are paying attention and hopefully considering the things being shared. It's great to have a discussion like this and we may not change anothers mind, but those watching from the sidelines do indeed benefit, if in no other way than to ponder each side of the view. :xmm:

[Solly]

Ooops, Xmom gave the thread the Vulcan Death Grip. :eek:











j/k :hi:

[Xmansmommy]

I tend to have that affect on people Solly :nc:









:xmm:

[mustbenothing]

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

(Previous) 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).

(doogieduff) 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.

(Me) I'm sorry that you dislike my use of God's Word as a basis for theology. In the first reference, God Himself speaks. In the second reference, Job speaks in response to his ultimate brokenness as the close of the story. The third is Paul's doxology.

In the end of Job (esp. chs. 38-42), Job admits defeat and, in the face of God's rebuke, sees that it was arrogant and wrong of him to question God and try to act oustide of the bounds of God's provision and revelation rather than within the freedom they afford. In the same way, I see no reason to speculate about the desires of the Almighty, and am satisfied to speak on where He speaks on such issues.




(doogieduff) 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.

(Me) It has been revealed to us why Christ was sent. I see no indicator of the intent in choosing Saul over others. If the Scriptures teach it, and you know where I might find such teaching, please let me know.




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

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

(doogieduff) 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?

(Me) The definite article is plural accusative, and pas (declined pantas) is after it, so it means "all the things." There is no limitation present.



(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? ”

(doogieduff) 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.

(Me) If he repented, then he would be restored
He did not repent
Therefore, we have no reason to think that he was restored.

There is no logical contradiction.



(doogieduff) BTW, if he would have repented, that would have been predestined also correct? So in reality Saul isn't really doing anything.

(Me) Non-sequitur. Predestination in no way destroys instrumentality. This would be like saying, "The boss told me to fire Joe, so in reality I'm not really firing Joe."




(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.

(Previous) Exactly!

(doogieduff) 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.

(Me) You can keep making this claim all day, but I'm waiting for an argument. Why should anyone think that if God decrees for me to eat a hamburger, that I don't really eat that hamburger? On the contrary, it would seem that if I didn't really eat that hamburger, God's decree was vioble, thus God's trustworthiness called into question!




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

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

(doogieduff) 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?

(Me) Predestination is not mentioned explicitly, and I never said it was. Again, you make the assertion: "It's right there." Where?




(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?

(Previous) 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? ”

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

(Me) You haven't answered Paul's response. The fact that Paul (thus God) anticipated your question speaks volumes. For, if Paul had to answer your objection to my point of view, but wouldn't if advocating your own, it seems that his position was probably fairly close to mine.



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

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

(doogieduff) Nope, it's biblical.

(Me) Would that be why I've presented volumes of arguments, both from proof-texts and deeper exegesis, while you've only made assertions?




(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?

(Previous) 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. ”

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

(Me) The various senses in which God changes His mind and so forth must differ from our repentance, for our repentance is based on the correction of a sin or error. God does not sin, nor does God err.




(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.

(Previous) 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) 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) The conclusion was nowhere argued. No statement was made about whether or not God foreknow or predestined anything. Therefore, in order to draw your conclusion, you're going to have to produce a much stronger argument than bare assertion.



(Previous) 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) 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.

(Me) Straw-man. I never said God forced anyone to do evil.




(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?

(Previous) 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. ”

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

(Me) I don't understand how your first question is even relevant. I'm assuming that you want a 'yes' to make the analogy against time. Of course, this begs-the-question, as I see no reason to think that time has no beginning or end.

Second, you assert that time is nothing out of which to be -- but where's the evidence?

[Pucca]

Hello All,

I haven't had time to read through this entire thread but has anyone considered the fact that God 'did not' choose Saul. It was already established in the Promises that the King of Israel would be from line of Judah.

I'm sure you will all agree with me that Saul was from the tribe of Benjamin? This is just food for thought here. Would anyone like to comment on this before I move on?

:yipee:
Pucca

[Act9_12Out]

Pucca asked,


but has anyone considered the fact that God 'did not' choose Saul.

Nope, haven't considered that... neither has the Bible...


1 samuel 10
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!"

Pucca continues,


It was already established in the Promises that the King of Israel would be from line of Judah.

I'm sure you will all agree with me that Saul was from the tribe of Benjamin? This is just food for thought here. Would anyone like to comment on this before I move on?

Please feel free to move on...

--Jeremy

[Act9_12Out]

mustbenothing,

You say,


(Previous) 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).
(Me) I'm sorry that you dislike my use of God's Word as a basis for theology. In the first reference, God Himself speaks. In the second reference, Job speaks in response to his ultimate brokenness as the close of the story. The third is Paul's doxology.


I find it interesting that the word used of Job’s repentance, nacham is also used of Jehovah. Job “repents” nacham in dust and ashes in Job 42:6. More on this in a minute… You continue,


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

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

Please feel free to join in the discussion “What Else Could God Do?” Why would God “expect” good grapes and receive wild grapes? Why didn’t He just predestine good grapes? Why is God “displeased” and why does God “wonder” if He supposedly foreknows and predestines all things according to your citation of Romans 8:28 and Ephesians 1:11? You continue,


(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? ”

This is where the problem lies… From your view, God asked Saul to “utterly destroy” the Amalekites, when He was already aware that Saul would disobey. From your earlier statement, you are forced to say that God predestined Saul to disobey, fail and ultimately sin. Think about it… From your view, God asked Saul to do something that God had already predestined Saul not to do. Talk about illogical. You continue,


(Me) If he repented, then he would be restored
He did not repent
Therefore, we have no reason to think that he was restored.

You miss the point. If Saul would have freely and honestly repented, God would have restored him to the throne. In fact, from your view, if God already knew he was going to take the throne from Saul, God could not have made this statement...


1 Samuel 13
13And Samuel said to Saul, “You have done foolishly. You have not kept the commandment of the LORD your God, which He commanded you. For now the LORD would have established your kingdom over Israel forever.

How could God say He “would have established Saul’s kingdom forever…” if He already knew and predestined Saul to disobey / fail? Secondly, look at king Manessah. He was the most evil king ever. As he was being carried off by the Assyrians, he had a true repentance and God restored him to the throne.


2 Chronicles 33
1 Manasseh was twelve years old when he became king, and he reigned fifty-five years in Jerusalem.
2 But he did evil in the sight of the Lord, according to the abominations of the nations whom the Lord had cast out before the children of Israel.
3 For he rebuilt the high places which Hezekiah his father had broken down; he raised up altars for the Baals, and made wooden images; and he worshiped all the host of heaven and served them.
4 He also built altars in the house of the Lord, of which the Lord had said, “In Jerusalem shall My name be forever.”
5 And he built altars for all the host of heaven in the two courts of the house of the Lord.
6 Also he caused his sons to pass through the fire in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom; he practiced soothsaying, used witchcraft and sorcery, and consulted mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the sight of the Lord, to provoke Him to anger.
7 He even set a carved image, the idol which he had made, in the house of God, of which God had said to David and to Solomon his son, “In this house and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, I will put My name forever;
8 “and I will not again remove the foot of Israel from the land which I have appointed for your fathers—only if they are careful to do all that I have commanded them, according to the whole law and the statutes and the ordinances by the hand of Moses.”
9 So Manasseh seduced Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem to do more evil than the nations whom the Lord had destroyed before the children of Israel.
10 And the Lord spoke to Manasseh and his people, but they would not listen.
11 Therefore the Lord brought upon them the captains of the army of the king of Assyria, who took Manasseh with hooks, bound him with bronze fetters, and carried him off to Babylon.
12 Now when he was in affliction, he implored the Lord his God, and humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers,
13 and prayed to Him; and He received his entreaty, heard his supplication, and brought him back to Jerusalem into his kingdom. Then Manasseh knew that the Lord was God.

Once again, if Saul would have truly been repentant, God would have restored him to the throne. From your view, this could never become a reality because God already knew / predestined Saul to disobey and fail. You continue,


(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.

(Previous) Exactly!

The context of my statement is from Jeremiah 18 and Ezekiel 18. These passages clearly show God’s nature. God responds to our actions / reactions towards Him and blesses / curses accordingly. You continue,


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

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

Please re-read 1 Samuel 15:1-35. God asked Saul to “utterly destroy” the Amalekites. Saul disobeyed and God took the throne from Saul. Here are the two possibilities…

1. The calvinist says God already knew Saul would disobey. Therefore, God’s desire for Saul to “utterly destroy” the Amalekites could never come to pass (even though God commanded Saul to do so).
2. The OV proves that God truly had a desire for Saul to “utterly destroy” the Amalekites. When God commanded Saul to do this, God meant it. Saul freely disobeyed God, and God responded to Saul’s free will disobedience (jer 18, Eze 18).

Now, which seems more plausible? If I were an unbeliever who was told that God asked Saul to complete a work for God, but God already knew this was an unreality, the I would question God’s integrity. God is not honest if He asks us to do something and predestines us to do the opposite. You continue,


(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?

(Previous) 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? ”

Ah, the old calvinist Romans 9 cop-out. I think we need to start a thread on Romans 9 to show how calvinists totally misinterpret Romans 9. Another discussion I guess… I would ask that you read Jeremaih 18:1-6 in light of Romans 9:21. When you do, keep these questions in mind. When the Potter formed a vessel that was marred, was it because the Potter purposefully designed a “marred” vessel? Or, was the clay the type of clay that would form a “marred” vessel? You continue,


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

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

(doogieduff) Nope, it's biblical.

(Me) Would that be why I've presented volumes of arguments, both from proof-texts and deeper exegesis, while you've only made assertions?

Volumes? I must have missed those…Feel good theology? Assertions? To echo doogieduff, “Nope, it’s Biblical!” Let’s read it…


1 Corinthians 16
22If anyone does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed. O Lord, come!

We are called to love God emotionally. The word for love here is phileo which refers to an emotional love. Once again, it is not a “feel good theology,” but rather a Biblical theology. You continue,


(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?

(Previous) 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. ”

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

(Me) The various senses in which God changes His mind and so forth must differ from our repentance, for our repentance is based on the correction of a sin or error. God does not sin, nor does God err.

Back to Job 42:6… The Hebrew word nacham is used showing Job’s repentance. The same word, nacham is attributed to God over 20 times in the OT. Now I ask, if Job “repents” nacham, then what does it really mean when God “repents”, nacham? You continue,


(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.

(Previous) 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? ”

I ask again for proof that God is illogical. Why would God command an action if He already knew / predestined otherwise? You continue,


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

(Me) I don't understand how your first question is even relevant. I'm assuming that you want a 'yes' to make the analogy against time. Of course, this begs-the-question, as I see no reason to think that time has no beginning or end.

Second, you assert that time is nothing out of which to be -- but where's the evidence?

I pose the same question… Where is the evidence that God is outside of time? You must show that time is a created “thing” to be outside of. When God is outside of time, how does He think or act? It doesn’t follow logically. Can God have two sequential thoughts outside of time? How does He know which though is first? The Biblical evidence shows God in time thinking and acting temporally. Time is a unit of measurement, not a created “thing.”

Because of calvinistic, unbiblical teaching, God makes the following statement...


6And the Lord repented nacham that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.

--Jeremy

[Act9_12Out]

Blake,

I really want to know if you believe all of those “possibilities” you’re spouting… You say God has written the Bible as some sort of “Divine Drama”? Give me a break! If this were true, don’t you think God would have said this was the case? How are we to know what is true and what is part of God’s play that He has “written”? You say,


Well I ask you this does it make a script writer a liar if he puts himself in his own drama? I don't think so!

A drama is fiction… I know that you’re adolescent mind is very fragile and easily swayed. You show your true colors and level of maturity when you say,


I will really let you get your panties in a tiz by telling you I think he is OUTSIDE of time. So it really causes no problems when I view it in this light.

Did you think of that disrespectful statement all by yourself, or did you have an adult help you? Just because you say God is outside of time does not make it true… You continue,


I think that you are missing my point about God not knowing Hezekiah's heart. We are talking present knowledge here if God has to search Hezekiah's heart at every second then he really never knows anyones heart fully nor can he really know any present action fully. This works against you since you said that God has to make sure that everyones hearts are right doesn't he have to search them over and over and over again?

So you have a problem with God knowing the present heart state of every individual completely at any given moment? And you say we limit God… You continue,


What about Abraham? Surely since he had "free-will" he would have kept God guessing God would not just had to check his heart about sacrificing Isaac, but over and over again. I mean if Abraham was truly free in your sense then how did God know that Abraham was going to carry out his covenant plan?

Uh, that’s exactly what happened. Abram was accounted righteousness for simply believing that his seed would be like the stars of the sky (Gen 15:1-6). Abram’s heart changed, and he attempted to fulfill God’s promise on his own. Did you forget about Ishmael? Abram took matters into his own hands and had sex with Hagar (If I use too many adult words, let me know). God is displeased with Abram’s decision and commands circumcision to show no confidence in the flesh. Ultimately, Abraham’s heart state changes again, and God fulfills His promise to Abraham through Issac. You continue and comment on Manessah,


I am going to tell you the same exact thing I told you before ACTs 9 which you do not seem to get. God uses these warnings and moves armies to get a response from Manessah to repent. It is again how God is working through his creatures to bring about his predtermined plan if you have a problem with this I do not know what to tell you.

So, you hold to the position that God predestined Manessah to be the most evil king ever, predestined armies to come against him, and predestined Manessah to repent so God could restore him to the throne? You must also believe that God predestined Saul to disobey and fail. What kind of god do you worship? You imply that your god commanded Saul to “utterly destroy” the Amalekites, knowing full well that your god had already predestined Saul to fail… Unbelievable… You continue,


Postscript: Act9 I find if funny that you do not mention something that is very important to these text about Hezekiah. Before the Lord renewed Hezekiah he had no son therefore he had no one to take over the throne!

So if Hezekiah was to die there would be NO Heir to the throne! That would not be good at all. Wait there is more and I will let someone else who is a Calvinist speak also to show that we can deal with these passages. But first I would like to make the point that you cannot escape your own criticism!

If as you contend, God was ignorant of the timing of Hezekiah's death when He sent Isaiah to him, then we are left with insurmountable doubts about the Lord's faithfullness. Had Hezekiah died before his son Manasseh was born, God's word would have failed.

Talk about limiting God! You imply that God was not smart enough to make someone else the heir. I guess Hezekiah didn’t have any other sons, brothers, male cousins, etc… They all share the same bloodline… Hezekiah was sick and near death. God could have used someone else in his family to fulfill the promise. Hezekiah prayed, and God restored him. You continue,


If god cannot be trusted to do what He says, why ask him to do anything!? [1]
So as you have been shown to have your pants down again! :

More juvenile statements… You limit God, make Him a liar and say He is not smart enough to fulfill His promises. You make God less than a simple "script writer" that has written us all parts in His play...

The truth of the Bible is calling you Blake...

--Jeremy

[Fortigurn]

Yesterday @ 02:54 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=85256#post85256)
Act9_12Out:
Nope, haven't considered that... neither has the Bible...

You didn't address the issue. The issue was not whether Saul's annointing was sanctioned by God (we know that it was - He elected to give the people a king of the manner they desired).

The issue was that God did not choose to set up a king over Israel, He elected to give the people what they wanted, and commanded Samuel to choose a king according to the desires of the people.

The people should always have known that this was not their true king, because he was usurping the Divine position, and he could not be Messiah because he was not of the tribe of Benjamin.

If you read 1 Samuel 8, you will find that choosing a man to be king over them was not God's idea:


1 Samuel 8:
4 Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah,
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.
6 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD.

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.

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.

You are free to disagree with Scripture on this point.


Please feel free to move on...

You failed to address her other point. Why?

[Act9_12Out]

Fortigurn,

I'm sorry, but you're wrong... Feel free to read on...


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!"

1 Samuel 10:24 is very clear... God chose Saul to be king, not the people...

--Jeremy

[Fortigurn]

Today @ 02:29 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=86362#post86362)
Act9_12Out:
I'm sorry, but you're wrong...

I'm sorry, but you haven't read my post. Nor have you addressed it.

I am not disputing that God elected Saul to be king. Please read my post. Then, if you will, address it.

No, I am not a Calvinist. Yes, I believe in free will.


1 Samuel 10:24 is very clear... God chose Saul to be king, not the people...

That is not in dispute. You have not read my post.

[Act9_12Out]

Fortigurn,

See what happens when you jump into the middle of a discussion without clarifying what you believe? You responded to my response to Pucca... Let's recap: Pucca asked,


...has anyone considered the fact that God 'did not' choose Saul.

I responded,


Nope, haven't considered that... neither has the Bible...


1 Samuel 10
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!"

Then you say,


You didn't address the issue. The issue was not whether Saul's annointing was sanctioned by God (we know that it was - He elected to give the people a king of the manner they desired).

The issue was that God did not choose to set up a king over Israel, He elected to give the people what they wanted, and commanded Samuel to choose a king according to the desires of the people.

Maybe that's not your issue, but is was Pucca's issue. Pucca asked us to consider that God did not choose Saul. You agree that God did choose Saul, but say that God chose a wicked king because that's what the people desired? Prove it... God was simply telling them what would happen in the day they had a king versus having judges. Then you say,


The people should always have known that this was not their true king, because he was usurping the Divine position, and he could not be Messiah because he was not of the tribe of Benjamin.

Saul was of the tribe of Benjamin... You continue,


If you read 1 Samuel 8, you will find that choosing a man to be king over them was not God's idea:

True, but you imply that God "chose" a wicked king for them because that's what they desired? Sorry, it doesn't fit. Saul did not fail because God knew or predestined that he would fail. Saul disobeyed freely, had a false repentance, and lost the throne. The issue of this thread is who is culpable for Saul losing the throne. Is it God's prescience / predestination, or Saul's ability to freely disobey and have a false repentance? The second and most important point of this thread is whether or not God truly repented that He set up Saul as king over Israel (1 Sam 15:11,35).

In your second post, I'm not sure what your point is. PLease feel free to share the relevance of your point or what you believe Pucca's point to be...

--Jeremy

[Pucca]

Nope, haven't considered that... neither has the Bible...

Well, not if you haven't read it closely.

Observe

1Samuel 8
6But the thing displeased Samuel when they (Israel) said, "Give us a king to judge us." So Samuel prayed to the LORD. 7And the LORD said to Samuel, "Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them.

God goes on to say to Samuel in verse 9

9Now therefore, heed their voice. However, you shall solemnly forewarn them, and show them the behavior of the king who will reign over them."

Further on we read:

21And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he repeated them in the hearing of the LORD. 22So the LORD said to Samuel, "Heed their voice, and make them a king." And Samuel said to the men of Israel, "Every man go to his city."


Please feel free to move on...

Uh, not so fast... :poke:

In Genesis 49:10, God specifically says:

Genesis 49:10 The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.

This means that the King of Israel will always be of the tribe of Judah. Sceptre is an emblem of authority. All the 'divinely' appointed kings of Israel will be out of the tribe of Judah.

Now as we read further in 1Samuel9, we learn what tribe Saul is from:

1 There was a man of Benjamin whose name was Kish the son of Abiel, the son of Zeror, the son of Bechorath, the son of Aphiah, a Benjamite, a mighty man of power. 2And he had a choice and handsome son whose name was Saul.

Saul was of the tribe of Benjamin but God said in Genesis that all Kings of Israel will be from the tribe of Judah.

You figure it out...

But that's not all, let's go back to Samuel 8 where God says:

18And you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, and the LORD will not hear you in that day."

As usual, Israel being a disobedient nation wanted a King of their own making instead of relying on God to provide a ruler.

:fight:

[Act9_12Out]

Pucca,

However, you fail to explain 1 Samuel 10...


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!"

Do you disagree with Scriprure? Did God choose Saul or not?

1 Samuel 10:24a "Do you see him whom the Lord has chosen,

--Jeremy

[Solly]

And I pointed out that God chose the king that they, in their rebellious hearts, wanted. Be careful what you ask from God, you just might get it.

[Act9_12Out]

Solly,

Your statement...


And I pointed out that God chose the king that they, in their rebellious hearts, wanted. Be careful what you ask from God, you just might get it.

...is logically inconsistent. You imply that God chose Saul because he was a horrible king. You say God chose the man that the people "in their rebellious hearts" wanted. Again, if this were true, 1 Samuel 13:13 could not be true.

God is very specific when He tells us what His intentions were for Saul when He chose Saul.


1 Samuel 13
13:13
And Samuel said to Saul, "You have done foolishly. You have not kept the commandment of the Lord your God, which He commanded you. For now the Lord would have established your kingdom over Israel forever.

Scripture is very clear. God chose Saul intending to establish Saul's throne forever. Saul freely disobeyed, and God repented that He made Saul king (1 Sam 15:11, 35). God took the throne from Saul after Saul disobeyed... God did not choose Saul "already knowing" Saul would fail.

-Jeremy

[Solly]

Today @ 09:45 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=88742#post88742)
Act9_12Out:

Solly,

Your statement is logically inconsistent. You imply that God chose Saul because he was a horrible king.

I imply no such thing, since I haven't used the word "horrible" and I don't think that could be said of Saul. manasseh yes, but not Saul. Plus, how can God chose Saul because he was a horrible king He wasn't king yet. I take it that is a slip on your part.

You say God chose the man that the people "in their rebellious hearts" wanted. Again, if this were true, 1 Samuel 13:13 For now the Lord would have established your kingdom over Israel forever could not be true.

Why? If Saul had been obedient, then there is no reason to assume this would not happen. It was a statement made in good faith that shows up how useless Saul turned out to be, since even with that promise, he still goofed up. If you had such a promise, wouoldn't you be very careful how you carried on?

God is very specific when He tells us what His intentions were for Saul when He chose Saul.

You can only make this statement stand if you completely ignore the context which I have outlined in previous posts. Israel were in rebellion against God, why would God favour them with a king which would establish a rebellious kingdom forever? God is very specific when he says, they have rejected me.

Yes, God would have established his kingdom: but on what basis - obedience. How would Saul obey God? By doing what he was told. How can any of us do that? By grace. Was Saul a regenerate man A9? David certainly was, as were his descendants such as Solomon, Hezeiah, Jehoshaphat. Was Saul a regenerate man A9?

Scripture is very clear. God chose Saul intending to establish Saul's throne forever. Saul freely disobeyed, and God repented that He made Saul king (1 Sam 15:11, 35). God took the throne from Saul after Saul disobeyed... God did not choose Saul "already knowing" Saul would fail.

God chose Saul as the representative of a rebellious people. As Fortigurn has pointed out (and I never thought I would agree with him, since he is not a Calvinist at the very least :poke:) Saul came from the tribe of Benjamin, of whom it was prophesied "Benjamin shall ravin as a wolf." God can quite easily chose Saul knowing he would fail, because all men will fail without the grace of God, and that is something Saul never sought, and is never evidenced in the record of his life. Israel had forgotten the lessons of the times of the Judges:

Jdg 10:6 And the children of Israel did evil again in the sight of the LORD, and served Baalim, and Ashtaroth, and the gods of Syria, and the gods of Zidon, and the gods of Moab, and the gods of the children of Ammon, and the gods of the Philistines, and forsook the LORD, and served not him.
Jdg 10:7 And the anger of the LORD was hot against Israel, and he sold them into the hands of the Philistines, and into the hands of the children of Ammon.
Jdg 10:8 And that year they vexed and oppressed the children of Israel: eighteen years, all the children of Israel that [were] on the other side Jordan in the land of the Amorites, which [is] in Gilead.
Jdg 10:9 Moreover the children of Ammon passed over Jordan to fight also against Judah, and against Benjamin, and against the house of Ephraim; so that Israel was sore distressed.
Jdg 10:10 And the children of Israel cried unto the LORD, saying, We have sinned against thee, both because we have forsaken our God, and also served Baalim.
Jdg 10:11 And the LORD said unto the children of Israel, [Did] not [I deliver you] from the Egyptians, and from the Amorites, from the children of Ammon, and from the Philistines?
Jdg 10:12 The Zidonians also, and the Amalekites, and the Maonites, did oppress you; and ye cried to me, and I delivered you out of their hand.
Jdg 10:13 Yet ye have forsaken me, and served other gods: wherefore I will deliver you no more.
Jdg 10:14 Go and cry unto the gods which ye have chosen; let them deliver you in the time of your tribulation.
Jdg 10:15 And the children of Israel said unto the LORD, We have sinned: do thou unto us whatsoever seemeth good unto thee; deliver us only, we pray thee, this day.
Jdg 10:16 And they put away the strange gods from among them, and served the LORD: and his soul was grieved for the misery of Israel.


Where do we find this in the account of Saul? The people got fed up with depending on God, and having to go to him becuase of the mess they got themselves into, so they demanded a king, like the other nations. I fail to see how you can miss this most important key to understanding the whole account of Saul, and the buildup to the calling of David, the man after God's own heart who also messed up real bad at times, yet was not cast out. Why? David didn't repent of his sin with uriah and Bathsheba until it was shoved in his face, yet God went easy on him. Saul didn't kill a man, and yet lost a kingdom.

[Act9_12Out]

Solly,

You say,


I imply no such thing, since I haven't used the word "horrible" and I don't think that could be said of Saul. manasseh yes, but not Saul. Plus, how can God chose Saul because he was a horrible king He wasn't king yet. I take it that is a slip on your part.

No, not a slip, rather a logical conclusion to your statement. You say Manessah was a horrible king. Here we agree. Isn't it interesting that Manessah was restored to his throne after destroying the temple of God and being carried off by the Assyrians. From the calvinistic view, God predestined Manessah to be a very evil king so he could be restored by God. In light of the calvinistic view of prescience / predestination, please explain why God chose Saul, knowing that He would disobey, and ultimately took the kingdom that would have been established forever. Please explain why God would predestine Manessah to be one of the most evil kings ever, already knowing that He would restore him to the throne. Yet another logical inconsistency. You continue,


Why? If Saul had been obedient, then there is no reason to assume this would not happen. It was a statement made in good faith that shows up how useless Saul turned out to be, since even with that promise, he still goofed up. If you had such a promise, wouoldn't you be very careful how you carried on?

That's a HUGE if. From the calvinistic view of prescience / predestination, Saul had no choice but to disobey. The HUGE "if" could never become a reality. Yet another logical inconsistency. You continue,


You can only make this statement stand if you completely ignore the context which I have outlined in previous posts. Israel were in rebellion against God, why would God favour them with a king which would establish a rebellious kingdom forever? God is very specific when he says, they have rejected me.

I have not ignored the context. The people rejected God, and rebelled against Him. Based on this idea, you postulate that God gave them a disobedient king to fulfill their desires. However, the fact that God chose Saul and would have established his throne forever does not fit with your model. God chose Saul and said He would have established Saul's throne forever, but God never really intended to establish Saul's throne forever, because God did not regenerate Saul from the foundations of the world... Yet another logical inconsistency. You continue,


Yes, God would have established his kingdom: but on what basis - obedience. How would Saul obey God? By doing what he was told. How can any of us do that? By grace. Was Saul a regenerate man A9? David certainly was, as were his descendants such as Solomon, Hezeiah, Jehoshaphat.

Follow this out to it's logical conclusion... God chose Saul to be king. God would have established Saul's throne forever if Saul would have obeyed. However, from your view, Saul could never obey. God said He would have established Saul's throne forever, knowing full well that this would never be accomplished since God did not give Saul the ability to obey. Yet another inconsistency. You ask,


Was Saul a regenerate man A9?

As you have shown from previous posts, you force calvinistic ideas of Total Depravity into this discussion. Was Saul a regenerate man? No... Saul disobeyed God. Now, the question arises, "Why was Saul unregenerate?" You say because God did not give him grace. I say God's grace is available to all. Saul did not freely accept that grace. Saul freely disobeyed God. Are you implying that God predestined Saul to hell, but still chose him to be king over His special, chosen people? Yet another logical inconsistency... As a side note, I believe salvation was a process for the circumcision believers. They had to endure and continually show faith in the way that God asked them. If they hung in there, they "received the end of their faith, the salvation of their souls." God did not force believers to persevere, but rather gives them the conscience to accept or reject Him of their own free will. You continue,


God chose Saul as the representative of a rebellious people. As Fortigurn has pointed out (and I never thought I would agree with him, since he is not a Calvinist at the very least :poke:) Saul came from the tribe of Benjamin, of whom it was prophesied "Benjamin shall ravin as a wolf." God can quite easily chose Saul knowing he would fail, because all men will fail without the grace of God, and that is something Saul never sought, and is never evidenced in the record of his life. Israel had forgotten the lessons of the times of the Judges:

More calvinistic presuppositions... By your same line of reasoning, Paul is in the same boat as Saul... They are both from the tribe of Benjamin... "Benjamin shall ravin as a wolf." Yet another logical inconsistency... You continue,


Where do we find this in the account of Saul? The people got fed up with depending on God, and having to go to him becuase of the mess they got themselves into, so they demanded a king, like the other nations.

"The people got fed up with depending on God?" You have just summarized the entire OT. Your statement proves nothing. You continue,


I fail to see how you can miss this most important key to understanding the whole account of Saul, and the buildup to the calling of David, the man after God's own heart who also messed up real bad at times, yet was not cast out. Why? David didn't repent of his sin with uriah and Bathsheba until it was shoved in his face, yet God went easy on him. Saul didn't kill a man, and yet lost a kingdom.

You miss the entire point. Saul lost a kingdom because he didn't kill a man (Agag). Through Saul's disobedience and false repentance, Saul lost a kingdom. David was a man after God's own heart. David had a true repentance. Now I ask, are you saying God predestined David to have a true repentance, and predestined Saul to have a false repentance? Yet another logical inconsistency...

Take care,

--Jeremy

[Solly]

Today @ 11:48 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=88795#post88795)
Act9_12Out:

You say,
No, not a slip, rather a logical conclusion to your statement.
You say Manessah was a horrible king. Here we agree. Isn't it interesting that Manessah was restored to his throne after destroying the temple of God and being carried off by the Assyrians.

Yes, after he was converted.

From the Calvinistic view, God predestined Manessah to be a very evil king so he could be restored by God.

No he did not. The doctrine of predestination has too sides. One, to give grace to those sinners whom God has predetermined to receive it; 2. to not give grace to other sinners. Mannaseh was a sinner, who acted as a sinner, until God gave him grace.

In light of the calvinistic view of prescience / predestination, please explain why God chose Saul, knowing that He would disobey, and ultimately took the kingdom that would have been established forever. Please explain why God would predestine Manessah to be one of the most evil kings ever, already knowing that He would restore him to the throne. Yet another logical inconsistency.

Only to you, and seer. God can make as many promises to sinners as he pleases. These promises are dependant upon their obedience. For Saul in particular, it required of him four words and the desire that should lie behind those four words:
I'm sorry, help me
Saul never uttered them. Without grace, none of us ever will; grace works in the desires, not the will - which is not causative. Saul never had the desire to serve God aright. You can talk about the availability of grace as much as you want, but until it changes our ddesires, it is of no use, and how will it do that? Fish swim in water, yet surprisingly, they are not full of water; when they breath their gullet is shut. So with sinners even surrounded by Arminian prevenient grace. You gotta open the gullet of the heart, and no-one desires to do that. Only God can do that. Remember the film "The Abyss" with the special underwater suits, filled with oxygenated water? man, that was soemthing getting into one of them, cos basically you had to drown for it to work properly. yet in drowning you found life. Such is grace, real grace.

That's a HUGE if. From the calvinistic view of prescience / predestination, Saul had no choice but to disobey. The HUGE "if" could never become a reality. Yet another logical inconsistency.

No, just your inability to understand. Saul was a sinner, and one who was responsible for his sins. He knew God existed, had been anointed at His command by a man who spoke with God. He could have asked for help at any time. As a sinner he did not. The if was only big because of Saul's refusal to come to terms with God. Saul was without excuse, that is how every man will be judged on that Great Day.

I have not ignored the context. The people rejected God, and rebelled against Him. Based on this idea, you postulate that God gave them a disobedient king to fulfill their desires. However, the fact that God chose Saul and would have established his throne forever does not fit with your model. God chose Saul and said He would have established Saul's throne forever, but God never really intended to establish Saul's throne forever, because God did not regenerate Saul from the foundations of the world... Yet another logical inconsistency.

Only if you have no idea of the teaching value and example israel provide. With just their consciences alone to rely on, men can claim they did not understand the situation. With the example of Israel, recorded in scripture - and remember, this is sacred history, not just history, and which we preach, men can see that they are without excuse, because even Israel goofed up. Without the accountability which men have towards God, as willing sinners, you have no basis upon which to judge them as sinners except some vague "not making use of the grace available to them".

Follow this out to it's logical conclusion... God chose Saul to be king. God would have established Saul's throne forever if Saul would have obeyed. However, from your view, Saul could never obey. God said He would have established Saul's throne forever, knowing full well that this would never be accomplished since God did not give Saul the ability to obey. Yet another inconsistency.

Whether one relies on your "general availability of grace" or the Reformed view of natural revelation as per Rom 1, Saul is responsible either way. Scripture is quite clear that all are without excuse. Saul had just to call upon God; he could at least have confessed to Samuel that he wasn't sure if he could do the job properly.

As you have shown from previous posts, you force calvinistic ideas of Total Depravity into this discussion.

And you are forcing your novel OVT ideas into it.

Was Saul a regenerate man? No... Saul disobeyed God. Now, the question arises, "Why was Saul unregenerate?" You say because God did not give him grace. I say God's grace is available to all. Saul did not freely accept that grace. Saul freely disobeyed God. Are you implying that God predestined Saul to hell, but still chose him to be king over His special, chosen people? Yet another logical inconsistency...


1. Are you saying God has nothing to do with unregenrate men, that he does not and can not rule and command them?
2. Don't get exalted notions of Israel's chosen status. They were there to bring forth the Messiah. They weren't all saved.
3. Re accepting that grace, see "Fish" above.

*snip* different topic

By your same line of reasoning, Paul is in the same boat as Saul... They are both from the tribe of Benjamin... "Benjamin shall ravin as a wolf." Yet another logical inconsistency... You continue,

Check your Bible. Look before Acts 9 Acts 9, read Acts 8: and Saul made havoc of the church.

"The people got fed up with depending on God?" You have just summarized the entire OT. Your statement proves nothing.

I have proved everything, esp the need for Christ the Mediator and special grace, because the men with the best privileges by nature still failed. Rom 2 and 3.

Now I ask, are you saying God predestined David to have a true repentance, and predestined Saul to have a false repentance? Yet another logical inconsistency...

Again, you don't follow very well. David was predestined for grace; Saul was not, he was passed over. he remain a sinner, responsible for his sins. His repentance is false just as with all men outside of Christ. His obedience was false because it was not to God, but served his own ends.


continued kind regards, despite the heat.
Tony

[Act9_12Out]

Tony,

We have discussed many issues. It is evident that we approach the Scriptures from two totally ends of the spectrum. We both interpret Scripture with our own biased views. Even though we disagree as to each others interpretations, I still consider you a friend and brother in Christ. Believe it or not, I appreciate your philosophical / classical views. I may disagree, but I stil appreciate them... With that said, on to your reply. You say,


Yes, after he was converted.

Honestly, I see your view as an antinomy. You say that God gives grace so that men may be converted, but deny that God is ultimately responsible for men being sent to hell. I understand the calvinistic view that all are sinners and deserve hell. From your view, God "elects" some to be saved from eternal torment. However, the antinomy comes into play when calvinists say that God is not culpable for men going to hell. God is responsible for "choosing" some to heaven, but is not responsible for reprobation. You imply that God regenerated Manessah after he defiled the temple of God. You imply that God "graced" Manessah as he was being carried off by the Assyrians. Unfortunately, the text does not suggest this. You continue,


No he did not. The doctrine of predestination has too sides. One, to give grace to those sinners whom God has predetermined to receive it; 2. to not give grace to other sinners. Mannaseh was a sinner, who acted as a sinner, until God gave him grace.

So, if God chooses not to "give grace to other sinners" then is God not culpable? I think He would be. The truth of the matter is, God has given every man the ability to believe. Some men freely choose to accept the universal offer of salvation, and others do not. God reacts accordingly (Jer 18, Eze 18). You continue,


Only to you, and seer. God can make as many promises to sinners as he pleases. These promises are dependant upon their obedience. For Saul in particular, it required of him four words and the desire that should lie behind those four words:

I'm sorry, help me

Saul never uttered them.

Do you see the contradiction here? You say God's promises are dependant upon their obedience, but also imply that men cannot be obedient unless God gives them the ability.

Why didn't Saul say, "I'm sorry, help me?" From your view, it's because God did not give him the ability to do so. You continue,


Without grace, none of us ever will; grace works in the desires, not the will - which is not causative.

See? None of us ever will until God chooses us. How is God not culpable? You continue,


Saul never had the desire to serve God aright.

From your view, Saul never had the chance to serve God, since God predestined Saul to hell before he was even born... You continue,


You can talk about the availability of grace as much as you want, but until it changes our ddesires, it is of no use, and how will it do that? Fish swim in water, yet surprisingly, they are not full of water; when they breath their gullet is shut. So with sinners even surrounded by Arminian prevenient grace. You gotta open the gullet of the heart, and no-one desires to do that. Only God can do that.

You have just affirmed what I have been saying. Supposedly, God is the only One who is able to "open the gullet of the heart." So, if men go to hell, it's because God did not "choose" them. Again, the truth of the Bible is that all men may freely accept or reject God. God is not responsible for sending men to hell. Men are responsible because they reject God. You continue,


No, just your inability to understand. Saul was a sinner, and one who was responsible for his sins. He knew God existed, had been anointed at His command by a man who spoke with God. He could have asked for help at any time.

From your previous statements, this does not logically follow. Saul could have asked for help at any time? How? God foreknew that He did not choose Saul for salvation. Saul did not have any choice in the matter. You continue,


As a sinner he did not. The if was only big because of Saul's refusal to come to terms with God. Saul was without excuse, that is how every man will be judged on that Great Day.

How could Saul refuse to "come to terms with God?" Saul was not chosen to have the ability to "come to terms with God." You continue,


Without the accountability which men have towards God, as willing sinners, you have no basis upon which to judge them as sinners except some vague "not making use of the grace available to them"

There is no accountability. From your view, God did not "choose" Saul. How is Saul acountable for rejecting God if God did not choose to give Saul grace? You continue,


Whether one relies on your "general availability of grace" or the Reformed view of natural revelation as per Rom 1, Saul is responsible either way. Scripture is quite clear that all are without excuse. Saul had just to call upon God; he could at least have confessed to Samuel that he wasn't sure if he could do the job properly.

From your view, God predetermined that Saul would never have the grace to "call upon God." How could Saul "call upon God" if God did not choose to give him that grace? You continue,


And you are forcing your novel OVT ideas into it.

I freely admit this. :smile: I believe the OV reconciles the antinomy you present. You continue,


1. Are you saying God has nothing to do with unregenrate men, that he does not and can not rule and command them?
2. Don't get exalted notions of Israel's chosen status. They were there to bring forth the Messiah. They weren't all saved.
3. Re accepting that grace, see "Fish" above.

1. God judges unregenerate men. The question is, what makes men unregenerate? The answer is, when men reach their age of accountability, sin revives, and men die (Rom 7). They die spiritually. God gives all men the ability to believe, and those who freely accept His gift are regenerated.

2. I agree that not all of ethnic Israel are saved. All of Israel who freely accept God are saved.

3. So you agree that grace is all around us, just waiting for us to accept it? Good, me too...

You continue,


Check your Bible. Look before Acts 9 Acts 9, read Acts 8: and Saul made havoc of the church.

You're earlier statement concerning Benjamin is irrelevant then. We are back to square one. Saul / Paul was supposedly chosen from the foundation of the world to be one of God's elect. It doesn't really matter that Saul / Paul persecuted the church, because God "knew" that Paul would eventually come to Him. You continue,


I have proved everything, esp the need for Christ the Mediator and special grace, because the men with the best privileges by nature still failed. Rom 2 and 3.

Square one again... Men who fail have no choice but to fail since God chooses to withhold His grace from them. You continue,


Again, you don't follow very well. David was predestined for grace; Saul was not, he was passed over. he remain a sinner, responsible for his sins. His repentance is false just as with all men outside of Christ. His obedience was false because it was not to God, but served his own ends.

There's that antinomy again... God predestined David, but passed over Saul. God is responsible for giving David grace, but is not responsible for sending Saul to hell...:huh: You continue,


continued kind regards, despite the heat.
Tony

Just another day in the shade!

Blessings,

--Jeremy

[Solly]

Today @ 09:25 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=89721#post89721)
Act9_12Out:
1. God judges unregenerate men. The question is, what makes men unregenerate? The answer is, when men reach their age pf accountability, sin revives, and men die (Rom 7). They die spiritually. God gives all men the ability to believe, and those who freely accept His gift are regenerated.


Can you give chapter and verse on this. This is not evangelicalism to my understanding. This needs a new thread, as I would be interested to see if your fellow OVTers, and the Arminians think the same.

New thread here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4163)

[Act9_12Out]

Solly,

When you finish policing the forums, please feel free to respond to the rest of my points...

-Jeremy

[Solly]

Today @ 10:56 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=89754#post89754)
Act9_12Out:

Solly,

When you finish policing the forums, please feel free to respond to the rest of my points...

-Jeremy


I have finished. :whip:

I don't see much point going over the territory once again. Perhaps we could address the issue of your understanding of grace, in the thread posted? This is germaine to the discussion regarding Sual's free will decisions.

[Act9_12Out]

Tony,

I would like to see how you reconcile the antinomy you present.

"God does the choosing, but man is responsible?"

See above....

--Jeremy