 |
| 
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 4/8/2004 7:19 AM (GMT -6) |   | Laika,
You say, "Jesus spoke of the prophet Jonah, NOT the false prophet Jonah." This means nothing in that Peter also spoke of Balaam as "the prophet" and not the false prophet in 2 Peter 2: 16 "for a mute donkey, speaking with a voice of a man, restrained the madness of the prophet."
You imply that nothing bad is said about Jonah. This is not true. It was on his account that God sent a storm and he caused great financial harm to those that he took refuge with. Beyond that, we see that chapter 2 begins with "Now the word of the LORD came to Jonah the second time, saying, “Arise, go to Nineveh the great city and proclaim to it the proclamation which I am going to tell you.” It is obvious why the second time is necessary, Jonah didn't obey the first time. In terms of execution, that a false prophets is not executed throughout the Scriptures is not part of the standard to measure a false prophet by. I will also respond that there was an inherent rebuke for Jonah's message implied in what God says. God rebukes Jonah for no compassion and it is for this reason that Jonah didn't wish for Nineveh to repent. quote:
Johnah 4:1, But it greatly displeased Jonah and he became angry. He prayed to the LORD and said, “Please LORD, was not this what I said while I was still in my own country? Therefore in order to forestall this I fled to Tarshish, for I knew that You are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, and one who relents concerning calamity. “Therefore now, O LORD, please take my life from me, for death is better to me than life.” The LORD said, “Do you have good reason to be angry?”
Jonah implicates himself and His message that lacks the condition he admits knowledge of. For you to state,"God ONLY dealt with his attitude once he delivered the message God gave and then God acted in mercy instead" is to miss the fact that chapter one and the "sign of Jonah exist at all. I understand that you "feel" that Jonah was a true prophet and that you "believe" that Jonah was a true prophet, but your Scriptural explanations are lacking support to address Deut 18 and the objective definition God gives us in black and white.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 4/8/2004 7:25 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by spenlake
You say, "Jesus spoke of the prophet Jonah, NOT the false prophet Jonah." This means nothing in that Peter also spoke of Balaam as "the prophet" and not the false prophet in 2 Peter 2: 16 "for a mute donkey, speaking with a voice of a man, restrained the madness of the prophet."
Balaam's message/teachings/way/errors were pointed out in scripture, where is Jonah's message trashed similarly?
It isn't.
"madness of the prophet" refers to Balaam, where is Jonah trashed similarly?
He isn't.
Jesus calls Jonah, "the prophet Jonah".
Paul calls Balaam, "the madness of the prophet".
And you think those two valuations are similar?
Given the chance, God didn't say A THING about the message Jonah gave.
You're trying to tar Jonah by associating him with Balaam which isn't working.
Where are they associated in scripture?
They aren't.
Leave Balaam out of it. Now show me where God, or ANYONE, has a problem with the message Jonah gave.
Even John Calvin doesn't agree with you. 
inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 4/8/2004 7:42 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom,
Your explanation below seems the best. quote:
Spenlake: God didn't do what Jonah said, thus according to Deut 18 Jonah is false.
Tom: Dude, there’s nothing going for your theory that Jonah was a false prophet. Lay that one by the wayside and find some other way out! I was just thinking, with regard to Hezekiah, God said “You will die; you will surely die; your sickness is unto death.” Then Hezekiah didn’t die from that sickness. What God said would happen didn’t happen. So I guess according to Deut 18 God is false prophet too? If you want to interpret Deut 18 in such a way that the foretold future is “locked” in you’ll have a hard time explaining a lot of passages. Now, one could argue that Isaiah’s prophecy to Hezekiah about his soon death was conditional even though no condition was expressly mentioned by the prophet. But once you do that, the door is open to interpret Jonah’s prophecy the same way. But if you DON’T allow for unexpressed conditions in prophecies, then even God turns out to be a false prophet.
I would argue, however, that the "unmentioned qualification" you reference regarding the prophets in Israel is not applicable with a prophet who is specifically sent to the gentiles. I would argue that the compassionate character of God and His lovingkindness that endures forever are revealed to Moses and Israel in Exodus 34:6-7. quote:
Then the LORD passed by in front of him and proclaimed, “The LORD, the LORD God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations.”
This revealed nature of God was commanded to be believed as true by all Israel and its kings in particular. The kings were commanded to read and even write the Law in Deut 17:16 quote:
“Now it shall come about when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself a copy of this law on a scroll in the presence of the Levitical priests. “It shall be with him and he shall read it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, by carefully observing all the words of this law and these statutes, that his heart may not be lifted up above his countrymen and that he may not turn aside from the commandment, to the right or the left, so that he and his sons may continue long in his kingdom in the midst of Israel.
I maintain that this is causes a fundamental difference between a prophet to Israel and a prophet to those who are not in posession of the revealed character of God. You may argue "common knowledge" from Romans but I think that the argument is still weak and that Jonah is never placed in a good light. Regarding Calvin agreeing with me on not, as Laika is insisting, I didn't think that she held him that high esteem or cared much about his opinon. I have already said that I have disagreements with Calvin because I believe that his civil/spiritual government teachings aren't Scriptural. Perhaps this is another one I disagree with. I appreciate your Scriptural response.
Thank you.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 4/8/2004 8:38 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom: I’d like to suggest that God really can change his mind and plans (in the sense Alan wants to deny) and that this doesn’t imply a weakness or lack of knowledge on God’s part. God can fully intend to do something (by that I mean invest his will and intention into doing something) and later literally change his mind or intention.
Alan: God intentions are either conditional or unconditional. If they are unconditional, then God intends to bring it about regardless of whatever else happens. If they are conditional, then God intends to bring it about provided that certain conditions are met. So for any state-of-affairs X, either (1) God unconditionally intends to bring about X, or (2) God intends to bring about X conditional upon some contingent factor C. More precisely, on (1) God decides "If C then X AND if not-C then X"; whereas on (2) God decides "If C then X BUT if not-C then not-X".
You say that God can "fully intend" to do something and later literally change his mind. I submit that this is incoherent for an infinitely intelligent being such as God. Either God "fully intends" to do something unconditionally, in which case he has already resolved NOT to change his mind, or he "fully intends" in a conditional sense, in which case regardless of whether the condition is fulfilled or not, his mind hasn't literally changed.
A God who is infinitely intelligent has no problem anticipating any and all possible situations and deciding ahead of time how he will deal with every possible contingency. And there's no reason for God not to decide ahead of time. What new information could emerge that he hasn't already accounted for? Now I suppose that God could, in principle, decide to figure some things out later. But, first, this wouldn't be a case of God's "fully intending" something and then later changing his mind, but rather a case of God not yet having formed an intention on the matter at all. Moreover, why would an infinitely intelligent God take that approach? There's nothing to be gained by it. And it certainly is not overtaxing on God's time and power to decide his conditional responses to every possible contingency in advance. And why wouldn't a providential God do so?
Tom: I get the feeling that the infinite intelligence argument encourages some to believe that if we actually knew what God knew about some future slice of reality, we’d be able to predict what God would do, and that God somehow really does have his mind eternally made up about all the possible ways he can act and respond.
Alan: There are two separate claims here. The first is that the decisions of a being with infinite intelligence could be perfectly predicted. This I deny, for the very reason you give, namely, that there can be several equally good ways to respond to some situations. The second claim here is that an infinitely intelligent God already has his mind made up about all the possible ways he can act and respond. This I affirm, for the reasons given above.
Appreciate the interaction.
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 4/8/2004 9:18 AM (GMT -6) | |
Laika,
When you state, "Do we all marry the most 'infinitely intelligent' choice of a mate? Or do we marry who we want to marry?" I think that this is a great example of How God chooses. Until you are married we pray for God's guidance and then make the best decision we can with all the subjective and objective input we have. Once we have married, I promise you that the person you married is the person that God has joined you with and His choice for a mate, His will for you. In Matthew 19 we see, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’? “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” Scripture states clearly that God joined you to your husband/wife (once you are married) even though it appears that you chose them.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 4/8/2004 9:50 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Laika says:My goodness spen lake, you have false prophets breaking out all over:
Jeremiah 18:7,8 "At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it; if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it."
So when God speaks a message of destruction, such as He gave Jonah, if that nation turns from it's evil, God will relent. Interesting.
This is a very good passage and a strong point. While your Scripture is strong, I believe that Jonah specifically didn't communicate this to Nineveh and the reason given in the text is clear that Jonah hated this attribute of God towards the Gentiles so much that he was ready to die.
I personally think that Jonah was a false prophet based upon the evidence. I don't think that I can "prove" it necessarily, but I don;t think that the opposing view has an overwhelming case either. The evidence doesn't point to Jonah being recommended as a role model for anyone.
I think that much of our concept of "prophet" is warped and defective. God uses an evil diviner to bring His word concerning Israel and the coming of Messiah in Numbers 23. We see that one of the men that killed Jesus prophesied correctly in John 11. Is he a "true prophet" quote:
But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all, nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish.” Now he did not say this on his own initiative, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation,
What of king Saul who prophesied more than once in 1 Samuel 10 and 19 so much so that it was said, "Therefore it became a proverb: 'Is Saul also among the prophets?'" This is the same Saul that was sent an evil spirit from God. God uses false apostles to accomplish miracles as we see in Judas. God has false prophets in Matt 7:23 prophesy and perform miracles in His name and expels them to hell. I don't think things are as clean as one would expect.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 4/8/2004 10:25 AM (GMT -6) | | Alan,
It would seem, based on your rebuttle to Tom's post, that unconditional decisions God makes, then, are ... determined, correct? Wouldn't these instances be those times when God has determined, unconditionally determined? For instance, it is determined that those who trust in Jesus for their salvation will be saved. This was uncondtional determininism. The prophecy to Nineveh obviously was not uncondtional.
If this is the the heart of your argument with regard to an understanding of real uncondtional actions God takes, I can see your point. I can't speak for Tom, but I think even he would agree that if God has unconditionally determined something, then that takes into consideration all that could or could not be; God has chosen one and only one non-changing direction: full determinism.
I think the confusion is in the difference between a philosophical discussion and a Scriptural or life-lived expression of unconditionalism and determinism. Simply stated, we can define determinism, but we cannot determine when something is determined, i.e., uncondtionally determined! Whew!
On another note,
It's worth noting that the Open View allows for more relaxed perameters in determining what is and is not false prophecy. Under a deterministic approach to Scripture, the theological conditioning to prophecy is that it can NEVER be that a prophecy does not come true; it is false if it doesn't.
The Open View, however, does not confine its conditioning to this strict of a construction of prophecy as true or false. Since God is free to "change His mind," He can choose to not fulfil a prophecy--those prophecies He tends to change are most often from the negative to the positive; a person or country repents, and God doesn't bring the predicted disaster to pass. Jonah is a classic example.
The Open View does not insist "Well, God said it, He HAS to do it." Far be it that any of us would insist God to be this restricted, or we ourselves may find that we are irreversably doomed! (That's not a Scriptural argument, but it's reminiscient of the reason we ask for mercy.) It is perfectly allowable (within the Open View) for God to not bring prophetic disaster, because it is completely within the character of God to do so. After all, we will never hear God say, "Oh, my, I sure wish I hadn't inspired that prophecy. too bad for Nineveh. Gotta stick with what I said." How silly.
This is where, once again, the Open View makes more sense than the classical theologies. God is fully free within His character to change His mind about a prophecy, particularly when such change is in respect to a repentent heart, because He has not ordained the prophecy in the context of already knowing anything and everything that will ever happen. We see this, once again, our own lives; parents, for instance, declaring that their children are going to be punished for such-and-such action, but later changing their minds because the child repented; the parents, in that instance, deemed the repentence enough to warrent no need of fulfilling the former "prophecy" of punishment. Just like God does with us! That, again, is why the Open View makes so much sense. It's true to life.
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 4/8/2004 11:57 AM (GMT -6) | | Starkman: Alan, it would seem, based on your rebuttle to Tom's post, that unconditional decisions God makes, then, are ... determined, correct? Wouldn't these instances be those times when God has determined, unconditionally determined? For instance, it is determined that those who trust in Jesus for their salvation will be saved. This was unconditional determininism. The prophecy to Nineveh obviously was not unconditional.
Alan: I don't think unconditional decisions on God's part require determinism. After all, God's decision to create was unconditional but not determined because he could have refrained from creating. Post creation things get a bit more complicated, however. First of all, an event is determined iff given its causal antecedents, it is the ONLY causally possible result. Now there are two ways in which God can unconditionally will something to happen: (1) God unconditionally wills that X and specifically sets up conditions that determine that X occur, (2) God unconditionally wills that X, but there are multiple ways of getting to that result, so God makes a set of conditional resolutions that collectively guarantee the result but individually do not. To use the chessmaster example, suppose the chessmaster knows that he can force a checkmate in 5 moves, and that there are 3 ways he can do this depending on which moves his oppenent makes. In that case the chessmaster can unconditionally will to checkmate in 5 moves without determining how that checkmate will occur and without determining every move of his opponent. In other words, the unconditional intention to checkmate can be realized by a set of conditional resolutions: IF he goes there, I'll checkmate him thus. If he instead goes there, I'll checkmate him in this other way. Of course, in order to guarantee a particular result in advance God may have to resort to deterministic compulsion at some point, but that will only be necessary if God's free creatures persistently refuse to cooperate. If his creatures do cooperate then God gets his unconditionally willed result without having to determine anything. For example, maybe God, for whatever reason, unconditionally willed to save Paul and make him an apostle. In accordance with this intention God employs various conditional resolutions to induce Paul to freely accept Christ (e.g., If Paul hear's Stephen's testimony then he might repent, so I'll arrange that). Paul doesn't cooperate, however, so God finally knocks him off his donkey and blinds him to get his attention.
Starkman: It's worth noting that the Open View allows for more relaxed parameters in determining what is and is not false prophecy.
Alan: I agree with this. For an omni-determining God who has settled everything by his eternal decree, there is no such thing as a merely conditional resolution, and thus no merely conditional prophecies.
Blessings,
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 4/8/2004 12:18 PM (GMT -6) | | Laplace: Question: If we use the chess analogy, then are you stating that God doesn't know the ACTUAL move people make until it is made (whereby the appropriate response is given)?
Starkman Remember: God has a whole slew of other things He knows that hardly keep His knowledge of a move confined to when it's actually moved; He can read minds, knows the thoughts and intents of the heart, etc. One would be hard pressed to come up with a move, move the piece and think that God didn't have enough time to digest the knowledge of the thought process that governed that person's move.
Laplace: If that is the case, then how does one explain God knowing what move a person will make in the future until it is done (prophesies about what certain people will/will not specifically do, not simply just if choice A, then response B, and so forth)?
Are we then saying that God selectively "blinds" Himself to future outcomes, choosing NOT to know something He well could if He wanted to?
Starkman Well, it isn't that God chooses to blind Himself to any knowledge. (I mean, can God blind Himself to the fact that He's God? Can God cease to be God? Can God lie? Here again, there's need for clarification of what it means to be all-powerful) Further, Scripture doesn't lead us to believe this is the way things operate.
This is a more difficult question, Laplace--the Open View has its share of problematic Scriptures just as the other classical theologies do. I think, though, that we must realize (as I've often said in other posts) that we are not as free as we think we are. God can predestine events that may limit a person's free will more so than usual. Jonah, for instance, didn't have a whole lot of slack about what He wanted or didn't want to do. And with regard to future events, I'm sure there are going to be people whom God will choose to do as He foretold, whether they like it or not. I mean, who knows how much of our desires to be an artist or a mechanic are built into us from birth, and we have nothing to say about it. We simply are not as free as we think we are, and there's nothing in Scripture that says God is obligated to give us all the freedom we think we are to have.
Let's consider Jesus telling Peter that he (Peter) would deny Christ. I dont' think this is Jesus (unconditionally) determining that Peter was going to deny Jesus, whether Peter liked it or not. Nor do I think that Jesus looked into the future, like someone who can see the future to come in motion picture format: one can then watch every thought, act word and anything else that will ever happen. The future hasn't happened yet, and this would be yet another form of determinism--nothing of this future can ever change. No, I think what Jesus did was read Peter's whole being so well (either that or the Father gave Jesus the revelation of the same information) that He could state in most definite terms that Peter would deny Jesus. Could Peter have not denied Jesus? Sure, in the technical sense--he was not being made to deny Jesus; his character was such that he would not be able to hold up under that kind of pressure. Jesus knew all about this about this. (Mind you, if there were the slightest chance that Peter wouldn't have denied Jesus--the character of Peter not being solidified to fall under the pressure--don't you think that Jesus would have known this and not have declared that Peter would deny Him? Of course He wouldn't have.
If God decides that there's going to be born a person named Cyrus, and He's going to be used by God to do certain things, well, then that's that. A baby will be born, and God will determine that the parents will call him Cyrus, and the baby will grow up to do as God wants. No ifs, ands or buts. Consider John the Baptist. His parents were told to call him John, period. I mean, I'd hate to think of what would have happened to either of them if they were to have absolutely refused to do so. Not good. Not good! So, as I say, we are simply not as free as we think we are. But we are free to love God from our hearts or turn away from Him. That we are free to do. That's the whole issue of the Creation account.
For limited freedom,
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 4/8/2004 12:23 PM (GMT -6) | | Laplace: Question: If we use the chess analogy, then are you stating that God doesn't know the ACTUAL move people make until it is made (whereby the appropriate response is given)?
Alan: It's not clear who you're responding to Laplace, but on behalf of the open view the answer to your question is "yes". In the analogy, the chessmaster doesn't need to know what actual moves will be made to guarantee a win. Similarly, an infinitely intelligent God can exercise a great deal of providential control over events without foreknowing or foredetermining everything that happens.
Laplace: If that is the case, then how does one explain God knowing what move a person will make in the future until it is done (prophesies about what certain people will/will not specifically do, not simply just if choice A, then response B, and so forth)?
Alan: No problem. First, the open view is perfectly consistent with some human actions and choices being determined or free in a compatibilistic sense and thus predictable in advance. Second, it is possible that some of these prophecies are implicitly conditional even though the condition is not explicitly stated (just as, for example, Jonah's prophecy to Nineveh was not stated as a conditional, but subsequent events revealed that it was conditional).
Laplace: Are we then saying that God selectively "blinds" Himself to future outcomes, choosing NOT to know something He well could if He wanted to?
Alan: This is the view of Dallas Willard, but it is not the view of most open theists, as far as I am aware. On the open view, God does not selectively "blind" himself to future contingents. Rather, there are no STRICTLY TRUE propositions of the form "S will freely do X" or "S will not freely do X", where freedom is understood in the libertarian sense, i.e., a choice is free iff one could have chosen otherwise given the same antecedent conditions. If there are no strictly true propositions of that form, then they cannot be known. Instead, what would be known by God is, for example, "S might and might not do X" or "S will probably do X."
God bless,
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 4/8/2004 12:35 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Alan,
quote:
Alan: I don't think unconditional decisions on God's part require determinism. After all, God's decision to create was unconditional but not determined because he could have refrained from creating.
How is God's decision to create unconditional? (See, I think I'm missing something here, because you are coming from philosophical framework--and that's absolutely fine; I am coming from a ... non-philosophical framework (I can hardly ensure that I'll make it home each day, what with my sense of direction, much less keep up with you logicians!) In other words, I'm interpreting God's creating as something He could have chosen not to do. It was, therefore, neither unconditional nor determined.
You said, quote:
First of all, an event is determined iff given its causal antecedents, it is the ONLY causally possible result.
But isn't there another option: if God has determined that X will be, knows all other options, and will not change His mind; X is therefore determined, not because it was the only causally possible result. Am I correct here? Or do you call this determinim? I fail, at the moment, to be able to see a difference. Here, let's look at this:
quote:
Now there are two ways in which God can unconditionally will something to happen: (1) God unconditionally wills that X and specifically sets up conditions that determine that X occur, (2) God unconditionally wills that X, but there are multiple ways of getting to that result, so God makes a set of conditional resolutions that collectively guarantee the result but individually do not.
What is it for God to unconditionally will if that is not to also determine? "Unconditionally," as I understand it here, simply means there is nothing that God does not already know that will cause Him to change His mind; thus, the thing has been determine.
Oops, forgot to sign my post!
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 4/8/2004 2:16 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Alan: Why not conclude that God changed his plan with the Ninevites? Because it implies that God is not infinitely intelligent, which seriously diminishes God.
Sorry, I wasn't clear here, this was intended to be a question for the OV people to answer. I think the master chess player analogy says God doesn't have to change his plan, and then OV people also seem to say that God did change his plan with the Ninevites, and I wonder how both of these could be true.
I agree that saying God changed his plan with the Ninevites diminishes God! It implies to me that he didn't consider the possibility that the Ninevites would repent.
quote:
TGB: I can conceive of situations in which a complete knowledge of possible events would not prevent me from genuinely intending to do something and yet later changing my mind when what I knew was highly improbable occurs.
Are you saying that the Ninevite's repentance was so improbable that God did not consider it in his plan? Greg Boyd says in his analogy that God is the invicible chess player because he bases his decision correctly on all possibilities, that he doesn't make a mistake when evaluating even remote possibilities:
"A third chess master is confident of victory even though she is playing a real person, not a computer. Though she cannot be certain of how her opponent will move, for her opponent is a free agent, she is certain she can wisely out-maneuver him. This chess master does not foreknow exactly what moves her opponent will make, but she perfectly anticipates all the moves her opponent might make. And on the basis of this superior intelligence, she is confident of victory" (Divine Foreknowledge, pp. 44-45).
So there are no possibilities that can disrupt God's plan, so he doesn't need to change it. But then we hear that God did change his plan with the Ninevites. That's the inconsistency.
quote:
Larris: God knew those people in Nineveh, he knew because he'd been watching them for a long time, and he knew because of what he saw that they would repent.
I think the OV teaches that God includes all possibilities in his plan. Certainly God knows people well, and I expect the OV would say God knows what people are likely to do. But again, if God included the possibility (probability?) that the Ninevites would repent, why did he have to change his plan (according to the OV) when they did repent?
quote:
Starkman: What this means is that if the dynamics of the human element, for example, are, in fact, limitless, then God does not know all of the possibilities and choices of mankind as finite.
That is one way to get around the difficulty. But then you have to abandon the chess master analogy, and say that there are possibilities that God cannot know, and thus cannot consider.
quote:
He is never caught off guard.
I don't see how this follows, if God cannot know all possibilities, though. The OV does need adjustment, but I don't see how you can maintain that God is never surprised, given what you just mentioned about not knowing all possibilities.
quote:
TGB: Now, one could argue that Isaiah’s prophecy to Hezekiah about his soon death was conditional even though no condition was expressly mentioned by the prophet. But once you do that, the door is open to interpret Jonah’s prophecy the same way.
I agree, I think there was an implied condition in Jonah's prophecy. Jonah ran! I think because he knew he was being sent on a mission to get them to repent.
quote:
Starkman: We see this, once again, our own lives; parents, for instance, declaring that their children are going to be punished for such-and-such action, but later changing their minds because the child repented; the parents, in that instance, deemed the repentence enough to warrent no need of fulfilling the former "prophecy" of punishment.
If I understand what you're saying here, you're implying that God did not make a definite plan in regard to the Ninevites. Now that does address the inconsistency. But how can we say that God had no plan?
JNH 3:2 "Go to the great city of Nineveh and proclaim to it the message I give you."
Why would God act, and send Jonah, if this was not part of a plan? I may not be understanding what you are saying here, though, for you mention parents "changing their mind," which seems to imply a plan that changed. But assuming you meant they really had not decided, i.e. they had no real plan, we read however "then God relented" (Jonah 3:10). The OV teaches (I have gathered) that this means God changed his plan. But what can this verse mean to the OV, if God had no plan at all, i.e. no intent one way or the other? I think the OV does have to say here that God did have a plan, some intent, it implies that he wasn't just observing.
But back to the question! Assuming God does have a plan in a given situation, does he ever need to change his plan, or not? According to the Open View...
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 4/8/2004 11:17 PM (GMT -6) | | Alan-
No doubt future events are either Z, Z~, or Q. I seem to recognize such language.  I’m not questioning that. I’m questioning the assumption that fully intending to do something requires that something to be unconditional for an omniscient being. I hear you saying that God can't possibly fully intend to do X and also know that his doing X is indeterminately the case. You’re equating a committed intention (which is required for any true “change of mind”) with the unconditionality of what is intended, which I’m not so sure is correct.
On a less important note, I wonder too just what real difference there is hermeneutically speaking between explaining God’s “repenting” or “changing his mind” as a determinist would and what you’re suggesting, for both claim the “change of mind” is only “apparent.” For the determinist it’s apparent because the all is determined, while for the open theist it’s apparent because the divine mind was never made up so as to permit a “change.” But it seems that open theists, Doc in particular, have argued there's more to the divine change of mind than mere appearance.
Still, there exist those future possible choices for God which are all equally good and workable. I haven’t heard anything that would suggest God could not fully commit to one or other of these and later change his mind. So I’m questioning whether “fully intending” and “unconditionality” require one another.
And on the whoe chess analogy thing, somebody like Kasparov can commit to a plan of attack, even while knowing the possibility exists however so slight, that plans will need to be changed. What Kasparov wants, what he pursues, what he attempts to orchestrate with every move, is his particular plan of attack, say, to corner his opponent's queen and remove her. It so happens that his opponent's moves cause Kasparov to change his mind. He abandons his attempt to corner his opponent's queen and pursues another plan of attack.
Now, I don’t doubt that Kasparov all the while acknowledged that not cornering his opponent’s queen was a possibility, that pursuing plan B was a possibility. But whereas you think this means Kasparov cannot be said to have truly changed his mind, I don't see the problem. I don’t think acknowledging the indeterminateness of what you intend means you cannot genuinely and without reservation pursue what you intend and consequently genuinely change your mind about pursuing it later. Talk of what is unconditional and conditional relates to the metaphysical status of the events in question. So because you link all "changes of mind" to a change in one's understanding of the metaphysical status of some event, you have to deny that God ever changes his mind. But I'm not convinced the link is necessary. A “change of mind” in my view relates to how invested one is in pursuing a particular course of action, not to the metaphysical status of the action per say (viz., determinism/indeterminism or unconditional/conditional).
Alan: You say that God can "fully intend" to do something and later literally change his mind. I submit that this is incoherent for an infinitely intelligent being such as God. Either God "fully intends" to do something unconditionally, in which case he has already resolved NOT to change his mind, or he "fully intends" in a conditional sense, in which case regardless of whether the condition is fulfilled or not, his mind hasn't literally changed.
Tom: Looks like we understand God’s “changing his mind” quite differently. That would explain our difference here. I understand such language to indicate a change in the course of action God pursues, that is, a change of will or intention with respect to what course of action is to be pursued. You seem to see such language (when literally understood) as indicating a change in God’s knowledge regarding the conditionality of some future event when the metaphysical status of the event in question never changed at all. I agree that defined this way a genuine “change of mind” would be quite impossible for an omniscient God. But I don’t think that’s what the Bible's language intends or what open theists mean when they say God literally changes his mind. I think rather a “change of mind” is a “change of will and intention” with regard to some specific course of action. And certainly God can truly pursue one course of action and later change and pursue another course of action. This, and not God’s knowledge regarding the metaphysical status of the course of action in question, is what constitutes the change of mind. So I would argue there’s nothing whatsoever incoherent about God “fully intending” to do something in the conditional sense and later changing his mind when the conditions are not met. He's not changing his mind about what the possibilities are or about which possibile courses of action are the best to pursue depending on how the events play out. He is changing his mind about which course of action he actually pursues and works to achieve. This, I submit, is what the Bible means when it describes God having changed his mind and not God's view on the metaphysical status of future events. The change is quite real and literal and involves God mentally and volitionally.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 4/9/2004 5:24 AM (GMT -6) | | Perhaps we can sum up the issue of what it means when God changes His mind this way:
In Scripture when God changes His mind, He is never saying, "You know, I never saw this coming. I mean, I knew all the options, possibilities and choices that were and ever would be, but this is totally beyond anything I knew; I now have to change my plans."
Rather ...
When God changes His mind, He will always have been able to say, "I will now switch from plan X to plan Y. I knew all along that it was a possibility that I might have to switch to plan Y if events unfolded requiring this switch. And because events have unfolded, thus requiring switching from plan X to plan Y, I am now switching to plan Y; I have, thus, changed my mind, but I have not changed it in the sense that I didn't know that this switch was a possibility and might have to be made. Nor have I changed my mind in the sense that I had determined before hand that plan X was the only plan I would ever choose; meaning that I was under no constraints to only use plan X, as if I had chosen it in the context that there are absolutely no exceptions--possibilities, options or choices--that could ever come about to cause me to use another plan."
Even if it is possible that there is an element in existence in which the possibilities about this element are infinite, this would only mean that God knows that. And if God, knowing that there are infinite possibilities, chooses plan X and later "changes His mind" to plan Y, He has not done so without knowing that a change might be made in the future, particularly in view of the existence of infinite possibilities as events unfold. What this means is that there never is a time, unless God decrees such, that God unconditionally determnes a plan (as Alan has defined these terms), but later changes His plan.
At least, this how I see it.
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 4/9/2004 5:57 AM (GMT -6) | | Yeah Starkman, something like that. My point is that a change of mind isn’t a purely cerebral or informational thing. That is, even understood literally it’s not a change in the data content of God’s “knowledge” about the future (which is how Alan seems to be understanding it; and that's OK on one level, it's just that that's not the only level on which a literal change of mind can make sense), at least that’s not how the Bible portrays it. When God does change his mind in Scripture, it’s always in relation to a course of action that God’s pursuing. So it’s more dynamically relational (as opposed to being a data bank of propositions). God changes his mind (intention, will) about what course of action to pursue. I think Alan and I are essentially affirming and denying the same things about God (we have to, we're coauthoring an article on it! ), but maybe are defining things a bit differently and so feel comfortable (or not) saying that God literally changes his mind.
Make sense?
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 4/9/2004 6:20 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 4/9/2004 7:07 AM (GMT -6) | | Thanks for all your replies, everyone!
quote:
TGB: And on the whole chess analogy thing, somebody like Kasparov can commit to a plan of attack, even while knowing the possibility exists however so slight, that plans will need to be changed.
OK, here I think you have revised Greg Boyd's chess master analogy, which is fine! So let's examine the implications. First of all, you now need to address the Scriptures that seem to say plainly that God's plan is always accomplished, without needing to be changed:
JOB 42:2 "I know that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted."
PS 33:10-11 The Lord foils the plans of the nations; he thwarts the purposes of the peoples. But the plans of the Lord stand firm forever, the purposes of his heart through all generations.
I think this verse says clearly that when man's decisions and God's plans conflict, God's plans do not have to change.
ISA 8:10 Devise your strategy, but it will be thwarted; propose your plan, but it will not stand, for God is with us.
ISA 46:10 "I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please."
Here's another implication! Now don't you have to step up and say that God's plan may actually fail? That there is a slight possibility that he may not be able to form any plan that will accomplish his purpose? But I don't know of any verses that say that, and I think most people would shy away from that conclusion. And I think the above verses speak to that issue, as well.
quote:
Laika: Jeremiah 18:7,8
"At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it; if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it."
God's plan to destroy a city/nation will be changed to God's plan to NOT destroy that city/nation if the city/nation "turns from it's evil".
This is how scripture portrays God and His plans.
That's a good point, if people say God doesn't change his plan (and stop saying that God did change his plan with the Ninevites), then how about this verse?
"Planned" could mean "devised", as in verse 11, "I am fashioning calamity."
JER 18:11 Thus says the Lord, "Behold, I am fashioning calamity against you and devising a plan against you. Oh turn back, each of you from his evil way, and reform your ways and your deeds."
Also, if "devising a plan" is taken literally here (you have to do this consistently!) then don't you have to say that God is still forming his plan? i.e. that in the illustration God gives, he really isn't changing his plan, rather he is still in the planning process. But then taking verse 8 literally means you have to say God *did* have a plan. So you get an inconsistency by being consistently literal here! So I think you have to read "planned" as "devised" in verse 8, and note that "fashioning calamity" is parallel with "devising a plan" in verse 11, and I think that explains the meaning, that God is "taking off his belt," getting ready to punish them, that is part of his plan, but the actual planned outcome is not mentioned.
I think God does show his actual plan in the very next chapter, too:
JER 19:1-2 This is what the Lord says: "Go and buy a clay jar from a potter. Take along some of the elders of the people and of the priests and go out to the Valley of Ben Hinnom, near the entrance of the Potsherd Gate.
I think these references to a finished pot, and shattering it at the Potsherd Gate, are intentional, and refer to the analogy in chapter 18. They show that the pot may be viewed as already finished, God's plan *is* actually settled, even while Jeremiah is warning them. Also, the whole analogy of the potter forming and then reforming the clay suggests that the potter is in control all the way through, that there was nothing in the clay, per se, that caused the potter to stop shaping it one way, and start shaping it differently.
RO 9:21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
quote:
When you repented of your sins and threw yourself on the mercy of God given to you through Jesus, aren't you glad God changed His plan of eternal punishment for you to His plan of eternal fellowship with you?
Time for some predestination verses!
2CO 5:5 Now he who prepared us for this very purpose is God, who gave to us the Spirit as a pledge.
EPH 1:4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.
2TH 2:13 But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth.
quote:
Starkman: In Scripture when God changes His mind, He is never saying, "You know, I never saw this coming. I mean, I knew all the options, possibilities and choices that were and ever would be, but this is totally beyond anything I knew; I now have to change my plans."
I agree, I think there are extensive difficulties if you edit the chess master analogy to say God does not know or correctly consider all possibilities.
quote:
When God changes His mind, He will always have been able to say, "I will now switch from plan X to plan Y. I knew all along that it was a possibility that I might have to switch to plan Y if events unfolded requiring this switch.
All right, now we are speaking of sub-plans, and not of an overall plan, I think. And as long as you are saying that God has an over-arching plan that includes all these sub-plans (may we call them that?), then I don't have a quarrel with that. That does resolve the difficulty. So then we can conclude that God changed his sub-plan with the Ninevites, and not his overall plan. That's pretty close to saying God changed his response here, and not his plan, so I think we almost agree.
But that has implications, too! Now the Open View cannot say so insistently that we must take the passages where God doesn't seem to know men's hearts, or is surprised, or repents quite literally. If we have qualified God's response to the Ninevites to mean he didn't change his overall plan, then we have not taken "repented" in the most literal sense.
Thus I think it is reasonable to examine if the most literal interpretation is also inappropriate in the other areas where the Open View takes this most literal interpretation.
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 4/9/2004 1:40 PM (GMT -6) | | Starkman: How is God's decision to create unconditional? ... In other words, I'm interpreting God's creating as something He could have chosen not to do. It was, therefore, neither unconditional nor determined.
Alan: I think God's decision to create was unconditional in that he didn't resolve "I will create IF ...". Instead, he just says "Let there be ...". No ifs about it.
Starkman: [Alan] said, "First of all, an event is determined iff given its causal antecedents, it is the ONLY causally possible result." But isn't there another option: if God has determined that X will be, knows all other options, and will not change His mind; X is therefore determined, not because it was the only causally possible result. Am I correct here? Or do you call this determinim? I fail, at the moment, to be able to see a difference.
Alan: Something can be fated by God without necessarily being determined. Something is fated if it is unavoidable--think of ancient Greek mythology where the tragic hero is predicted to suffer some fate, tries to avoid it, but inevitably get nailed in the end. Something is determined if it is causally necessitated by its antecedents. Universal determinism entail universal fatalism (neither of which I endorse, mind you). But universal fatalism does not entail determinism. The reason is that God might unconditionally resolve to bring about some state of affairs which he can realize (a) through the free cooperation of his creatures, or (b) by deterministically compelling his creatures. If things happen according to (a), then God didn't have to determine anything to get his way. But if his creatures don't cooperate then God may have to resort to (b) to get his way. So if God unconditionally resolves to get his way on some matter then he will bring it about one way or another; it is fated; unavoidable. But God may nevertheless be able to bring it about without forcing the cooperation of his creatures, that is, without the actions leading up to his intended result being determined.
Thanks for the feedback, Starkman.
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 4/9/2004 3:26 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom: I hear you [Alan] saying that God can't possibly fully intend to do X and also know that his doing X is indeterminately the case. You’re equating a committed intention (which is required for any true “change of mind”) with the unconditionality of what is intended, which I’m not so sure is correct.
Alan: To my mind, "fully intending" means "unconditionally intending", which means that God intends to bring something about come what may. So construed, it seems to make no sense for God to "fully intend" something and then "change his mind", for that would only show that his original intention wasn't unconditional after all, contrary to the assumption.
I gather that you use the phrase "fully intend" in a weaker sense, as a species of what I call "conditionally intending", more specifically as a conditional resolution coupled with a high probability estimation of the condition being fulfilled. The result is an expectation of pursuing a certain course of action. In your Kasparov example, he expects to pursue a course of action but when something unexpected (i.e., highly improbable) happens he pursues a different course of action than he had expected to.
Two issues here. First, is this properly described as "fully intending"? It seems to me that the degree of "fullness" of a conditional resolution should be proportional to the sum of the expected probabilities of all of the conditions that would fulfill that resolution. For example, let's say that there are exactly five possible conditions that can obtain: A,B,C,D,E. and let's suppose that God conditionally resolves as follows:
(1) If (A or B) then I will perform action X.
(2) If (C or D or E) then I will perform action Y.
Suppose the probabilities for the conditions being fulfilled are as follows: Prob(A or B) = 0.80, Prob(C or D or E) = 0.20. I would say then that God intends to perform X to degree 0.80, where 1.0 equals a "full" intention. A full intention, however, would be an unconditional one, i.e., one in which God resolved to carry out some action Z come what may. Thus:
(3) If (A or B or C or D or E) then I will perform Z.
So my first point is to question the propriety of your use of the phrase "fully intend".
My second point is that if a resolution is conditional and the condition, however much its fulfillment is expected, does NOT obtain, that doesn't change the resolution. It is still the case (now counterfactual) that IF the condition had been fulfilled then the condtionally resolved action would have been performed. Since the condition wasn't fulfilled, we now have a different set of conditional resolutions in force. What changes is not the resolution. Rather, due to a change in circumstances that leads to a revision of the expected probabilities, there is a change in the set of "live" conditional resolutions.
Tom: I wonder what real difference there is hermeneutically speaking between explaining God’s “repenting” or “changing his mind” as a determinist would and what you’re suggesting, for both claim the “change of mind” is only “apparent.” For the determinist it’s apparent because all is determined, while for the open theist it’s apparent because the divine mind was never made up so as to permit a “change.” But it seems that open theists, Doc in particular, have argued there's more to the divine change of mind than mere appearance.
Alan: First, I wouldn't say as an open theist that the divine mind was never made up so as to permit a change. Rather, I think the divine mind has always been made up, and I think that is perfectly consistent with open theism. In fact, I think it is what the open theist who believes in God's infinite intelligence should say.
The hermeneutical difference between myself and the theological determinist is this: For the theological determinist ALL of God's resolutions are ultimately unconditional. For me, and for open theism generally, SOME of God's resolutions are conditional in the sense that how God responds to his creatures is to some extent conditional upon creaturely free choices. Thus I would say that Biblical characterizations of God's "changing his mind" are figures of speech the literal significance of which is to point out God's resourceful flexibility in dealing with creation. The theological determinist also says that such characterizations are figures of speech, but is, I think, at pains to state what their literal significance is. If God has fixed everything by his eternal decree and the only kind of freedom any creature has is compatibilistic, then Biblical affirmations of God's "repenting" seem positively disingenuous for God is getting exactly what he originally wanted.
God bless,
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 4/10/2004 5:05 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
quote:
John: No published Open Theist that I am aware of has ever denied God has an overarching, "big picture" plan for history, and that this comprehensive plan includes smaller "sub-plans" based on real contingencies within the course of history. What OVTheism affirms in contradistinction to determinism is that these contingencies are in fact real (they could go either way).
quote:
Alan: What changes is not the resolution. Rather, due to a change in circumstances that leads to a revision of the expected probabilities, there is a change in the set of "live" conditional resolutions.
All this certainly fits with my understanding of the "invincible chess master" in OV teaching.
quote:
Tom: I wonder what real difference there is hermeneutically speaking between explaining God’s “repenting” or “changing his mind” as a determinist would and what you’re suggesting, for both claim the “change of mind” is only “apparent.” For the determinist it’s apparent because all is determined, while for the open theist it’s apparent because the divine mind was never made up so as to permit a “change.” But it seems that open theists, Doc in particular, have argued there's more to the divine change of mind than mere appearance.
Yes, that is what I am wondering, too.
quote:
Alan: First, I wouldn't say as an open theist that the divine mind was never made up so as to permit a change. Rather, I think the divine mind has always been made up, and I think that is perfectly consistent with open theism. In fact, I think it is what the open theist who believes in God's infinite intelligence should say.
That seems to be what Starkman is saying, too. That does seem to me to be the most consistent OV view (so to speak  ).
quote:
Alan continues: The hermeneutical difference between myself and the theological determinist is this: For the theological determinist ALL of God's resolutions are ultimately unconditional.
Yes.
quote:
For me, and for open theism generally, SOME of God's resolutions are conditional in the sense that how God responds to his creatures is to some extent conditional upon creaturely free choices. Thus I would say that Biblical characterizations of God's "changing his mind" are figures of speech the literal significance of which is to point out God's resourceful flexibility in dealing with creation. The theological determinist also says that such characterizations are figures of speech, but is, I think, at pains to state what their literal significance is. If God has fixed everything by his eternal decree and the only kind of freedom any creature has is compatibilistic, then Biblical affirmations of God's "repenting" seem positively disingenuous for God is getting exactly what he originally wanted.
Are you not stepping up to this as well, though? The invincible chess player wins, that's exactly what he (or she!) wanted. The details of getting there, on your view, were not important.
Also! I wanted to pose the question again I posed to Starkman, if you are not taking "God repenting" at its literal face-value meaning, then how about the other areas where OV teaching says we must take the most literal meaning? Now the hermeneutic (thank you Mr. Spelling Checker, wasn't sure how to spell that) is inconsistent, it seems. At least we need to hear how people are to determine when this hermeneutic is to be applied, and when it is not, and on what basis...
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
| 79 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:05 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|