 |
| 
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 4/10/2004 7:38 AM (GMT -6) |   | Alan-
Now how can two people who have nearly identical metaphysics disagree so much?  I don’t think our differences are all that significant. Just different preferences for ways to best describe things. I think our differences are semantic. But that doesn’t mean I don’t wanna WIN!
Alan: To my mind, "fully intending" means "unconditionally intending"…
Tom: Here's one big difference then. I don't see that you can get the "unconditionality" of the intended object from either “fully” or “intending,” for neither requires it. If I intend to bring about x conditionally my intention is not any less a genuine intention than if I intend to bring it about unconditionally. "Fully" adds nothing here. You either intend or you don’t intend. I was using “fully” to bolster the idea that the intention was a “genuine” intention and not merely apparent or pretend. But there’s nothing about the word “fully” that would encourage me to think a “full intention” has to have as its object an unconditional fulfillment whereas intending to bring some event about conditionally is less than a “full” (or "weaker") intention.
Alan: I gather that you use the phrase "fully intend" in a weaker sense, as a species of what I call "conditionally intending"
Tom: Why a “weaker” sense? Why is intending to bring x about conditionally a “weaker intention” than intending to bring it about unconditionally? This is the sort of prejudice for Z that we argue against, no? Why should Q be "weaker" than Z? To intend to bring about x conditionally is not a weaker intention than were I to intend to bring x about unconditionally. It’s a fully genuine “intention” either way.
Alan: 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"?
Tom: First, Kasparov doesn’t “expect to pursue” a course of action. He pursues it. He actually moves his pieces on the board for some time in an attempt to corner his opponent’s queen. Secondly, if “fully intending” by definition entails intending to bring something about unconditionally, then no, Kasparov doesn’t “fully intend” to corner his opponent’s queen and remove her. But since there’s no reason to assume that intending to bring something about conditionally cannot be a “full” (i.e., real or genuine) intention the fulfillment of which one actually works toward with all energy and desire, I don’t see any reason why Kasparov’s intention to corner his opponent’s queen cannot be unreservedly, sincerely, and "fully" pursued even if it's conditional. Kasparov does more than expect to pursue his opponent’s queen. He actually pursues it. That catching it is conditional neither renders the intention less than “full” (real) nor the efforts to secure it less than equally as sincerely pursued as if it were unconditional.
Alan: 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.
Tom: What’s conditional about the “resolution”? Nothing. Kasparov doesn’t conditionally resolve to capture his opponent’s queen. He (unconditionally) resolves to capture it conditionally. Not the same animal. Kasparov’s resolve, as resolve, is no less a resolve because the object is secured conditionally, and his resolving to attempt to capture his opponent’s queen (as opposed to his knight) as his preferred approach to winning may be an unconditional resolve. Again, I could argue that the conditionality of capturing his opponent’s queen actually requires a greater resolve on Kasparov’s part (but that’s not my point here), not a “weaker” one.
Alan: 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.
Tom: Again, what’s “conditional” about his resolve? There’s nothing conditional about the “resolve” to perform X if A or B obtain. Performing x is conditional, yes. But not the resolve to perform x in the event A or B obtain.
Let’s consider not future actions as the stuff that constitutes God’s “change of mind.” Let’s consider a course of action God is now pursuing with a view toward achieving some end. Like this:
God reasons:
(1) I desire to engage in X with Tom
(2) Engaging in X with Tom is partly conditioned upon Tom’s free will.
(3) Tom’s willing to engage in X with me requires me to pursue course of action A or B. A and B are both in my power to do and not conditioned upon anything outside myself. If Tom doesn’t respond to A then I’ll pursue B with him.
God therefore resolves to pursue course of action A. A’s object (Tom’s freely choosing to engage in X with God) is conditional. Does this make God’s pursuit of X through A less than fully intended by God? I should think not. Is God’s resolve to pursue A a “conditional resolve”? On the contrary, God doesn’t resolve to pursue A conditionally. God pursues course of action A quite unconditionally. Assuming I don’t respond to A, God then does what I think the Bible describes as “changing his mind.” He abandons pursuing course of action A and pursues course of action B, a very real change involving a change in God’s actions and state of mind. Was this thought out ahead of time? Yes. So there’s no “change of mind” in terms of infinite intelligence or data processing. No unexpected surprises. Nor is there a change in the conditionality of X. It’s still conditional, as God continues to know while changing from course of action A to course of action B. But I submit to you that when the Bible talks about God repenting or changing his mind it doesn’t have infinite intelligence in mind (no pun intended ), it rather refers to a change in the course of action God chooses to pursue. That God has always known he would have to make this change if A didn’t work out doesn’t mean he does not now choose to abandon A for B, that the choice and change aren't real, and that God’s not mindful of the change.
I say six. You say half a dozen. There is a sense in which God cannot change his mind, and there is a sense in which he can change his mind. Both are figures of speech. Since the Bible describes God as changing his mind, I assume it's describing the sense in which he can change his mind.
Alan: 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.
Tom: This heads in a direction I think is very biblical, for it gets away from abstract philosophical arguments about infinite intelligence (which I’m not against per say) and moves toward the Bible’s own way of describing things, except you prefer not to refer to this “flexible (i.e., changeable) dealing” as involving a “genuine” change of mind on God’s part since you define a genuine change of mind in such a way as to be possible only for fallible thinkers like us. I on the other hand wouldn’t know how to account for a genuine change in dealing without a corresponding change of mind, and since God chooses to use “change of mind” to describe himself, I prefer to define a change of mind in such a way that it's both "genuine" and compatible with God's being infinitely intelligent.
Is God’s mind eternally made up? I'd never encourage an open theist to have only one answer to this, for it depends. It’s eternally made up regarding all the possible choices God may make. And I’ll grant for the sake of argument that his mind is eternally made up about which of several equally workable possible future choices he will make if the events in question come about (though I see no advantage in affirming this as opposed to affirming God’s freedom to wait if he wanted to—what presuppositions are behind a notion of perfection that expects God to commit to a course of action before he has to? Maybe God just WANTS to wait. Why think that's less perfect than eternally settling on a course of action?), but if God since creation is temporal (as you and I both affirm), he thinks and executes temporally as well as adopts and abandons courses of actions sequentially, so it must be true in another sense that God's mind is constantly changing. I prefer to hold the Bible’s language regarding God’s changes of mind for this latter, temporal, ever changing category. You may still want to argue that even though God is temporal since creation his mind remains eternally “made up” regarding all things without exception. But I think you'd agree that's incoherent.
All I’m saying is that whether God’s mind is eternally “made up” or not all depends on how you define your terms. Different senses are possible, and there’s nothing to be gained in insisting that one way of defining the terms over another is best for open theism. What's best is what accounts for the truth given the way one defines one's terms. And given that there is a sense in which God chagnes his mind and a sense in which he doesn't, open theists ought to say both are true.
Now, this may all seem like nitpicking. But it’s important to me because I don’t want to say God’s change of mind is only “apparent,” which I understand you to be saying. Yes, “change of mind” is a figure of speech. But that’s the case even when applied to US. Nobody “literally” changes their mind (i.e., opens their skull, removes their brain, and places somebody else’s brain in it), at least not successfully. That’s not the “literal” interpretation open theists suggest. That it’s a figure of speech doesn’t mean it’s not interpreted literally as a figure of speech. God changes his mind (as an infinitely intelligent being, yes) about the courses of action he chooses to actually pursue.
Happy Resurrection Sunday!
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 4/10/2004 12:43 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Lee,
quote:
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...
Well, first of all, the Open View contention is not that one must take literally every thing in Scripture; rather, that one not resort to anthropomorphisms for every encounter of (Open View) Scriptures, such as, or along the lines of, "And God repented" or "And God changed His mind." For if we are to say that these statements are anthropomorphisms, then we must ask what the anthropomorphism means; what is God really mean if He does not meang what He said He means?! Even anthropomorphisms are vehicles for communicating meaning.
Next, what is it to repent? When we are told to repent, the context is sin that's fomenting a resolve by repentence. This is obviously not what it means, though, when God is said to repent. A more modern way to say "repent" today when refering to God repenting would be, "And God decided not to ..." or "God changed His mind" or "And it grieved God's heart, so he decided to ..." You can see, then, that God never repents in the context (of sin) as we do. The word repent is an older (archaic) word for changing directions. Indeed we are to change directions when we repent from sin; God changes direction with regard to other issues in Scripture, but never because He sinned!
Finally, if we were to take literally everything we say, we'd be hardpressed to communicate. As a matter of fact, when we disect words beyond the strands of the inherent strength words are able to glue meaning together, I believe that we will find that words, indeed, become meaningless! The whole idea of using words is to convey meaning. The words themselves are not the meaning, just a vehicle to communicate meaning. If you take enough nuts and bolts apart, the vehicle becomes inoperable. This is what happens when one pushes literality (or, for that matter, any method of communication) too far. "Literal" is only a meaningful vehicle if its cargo is being carried in a context. Forcing any method of communication beyond it's inherent strenght throws the ability to communicate right off its axes.
The Open View, then, seeks to grasp the intended meaning of statements like "And God repented" and "And God changed His mind." It doesn't take much to see what's going on in these kinds of passages if we apply simple, normal, everyday communicative skills when interpreting; not overworking or underworking any particular method of communication.
Well, I hope this helps.
For good old-fashioned ... I mean, modern and up-to-date ... communication,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Calvin_and_Hops
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 21
| Posted 4/10/2004 2:28 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
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
Can you lay side-by-side again how you each would express this; and the similarity? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 4/10/2004 3:46 PM (GMT -6) | | Calvin and Hops: Can you lay side-by-side again how you each would express this; and the similarity?
Tom: OK, Calvin and Hops, it’s only 4 AM here and I haven’t slept yet, so...
Alan and I both hold that God is infinitely intelligent, which means (among other things) that God eternally knows all the possible story lines, choices, and responses we and he might make. So there are no surprises for God in the sense that God ever faces what was not anticipated and so adequately prepared for. But he is surprised and frustrated (for God claims he is) in the sense that what God expects to occur (because it has the greater probability of occurring) sometimes does not occur (Jer. 3 and Isa 2).
As I understand Alan, he wants to say that a God who is infinitely intelligent in this way can never literally change his mind, because a true change of mind would by definition mean a change in his beliefs about what the future held (its certainties, its possibilities and probabilities, etc.), and a God whose beliefs are infinite and infallible can’t change those beliefs. I want to argue that just as there is a sense in which God is never literally “surprised” and a sense in which he is literally (truly) surprised, so there is a sense (the one Alan argues) in which God cannot literally (truly) change his mind and a sense in which he can literally (truly) change his mind. Now, Alan would agree that God does what I argue God does when I say God literally changes his mind (i.e., changes response, course of action, etc.). Alan just wouldn’t call it a “change of mind” (which seems strange to me since that’s what the Bible calls it). This is where modern ways of speaking and defining things sometimes clashes with biblical ways of describing things. No biggie. We agree on the “content.” We’re just labeling it differently.
So when the Bible says God changed his mind from declaring he would destroy some nation to deciding not to destroy them, this is not a “change OF MIND” for God in Alan’s view. It’s just a change of response, a change in the course of action God pursues. “Change of mind” is a figure of speech that refers to this change in course of action pursued.
I agree completely with what Alan says about God. God’s infinitely intelligent, can’t be mistaken in his beliefs, and has more than adequate responses prepared for anything that might happen because he foreknows all the possible story lines. Where Alan and I seem to disagree is what a “literal change of mind” may justifiably refer to. He argues such a change of mind is by definition possible only for somebody who is a finite fallible thinker who, let’s say, discovers that the course of action he’s pursuing isn’t the best one and so changes his mind and adopts another course of action, or someone who resolves to purchase a particular car but changes his mind when some unforeseen bit of information comes to light that makes the purchase a bad one. God doesn’t discover previously unknown bits of information, so he can’t change his mind this way (and I agree).
We often change our mind in this finite and fallible sense. I just don’t think a literal change of mind requires fallible finite thinking. I think God can and does literally change his mind.
I don’t mean literally open his skull and exchange brains. That’s too literal for anybody (well, I know some colleagues I’d like to try it with). I mean “changing states of mind.” Say it THAT way and my guess is Alan will agree that God experiences changing states of mind. God knows its 4:50 AM now and will experience a change in his state of mind with respect to knowing what time it is for me when it becomes 4:51 AM here in Beirut.
Since God says he “changes his mind” and since God is an infallible thinker constantly experiencing changing states of mind, I prefer to understand a literal change of mind as a literal change in the state of God’s mind regarding a some course of action he WAS pursuing or planning on pursuing (but knew might not yield the outcome he desired) to a new course of action he now adopts. He eternally knew these options and eternally knew which was best and which he’d pursue given the conditions. But since God’s “mind” is as good a place as any to understand where God does his thinking, knowing, and switching from plan A to plan B, I have no problem saying God literally experience a change in his state of mind such that his mind, once attending to administrating the choice to pursue plan A, changes and begins doing what it wasn’t doing before, that is, attending to the execution of plan B. In my book that’s a literal change of mind for God and it’s compatible with his eternally knowing he might have to make THIS change in plans. So, there are two senses at play. In one sense, God’s mind is eternally made up (he eternally knows he might abandon plan A for plan B), but in another sense his mind is constantly changing, for plan A must be actually abandoned and plan B must be actually pursued, and that, my friend, doesn’t happen without a change in the state of God’s mind regarding these two plans.
We can never sit inside of God and analyze him like this. But “mind,” “thoughts,” and “will,” and “choices” are the only words we have that God has given us to understand how he relates and acts and changes in response to us. If God changes his thoughts, he changes his mind. If God changes courses of action in response to us, he’s changing his mind. Alan actually agrees God has changing states of mind, changing thoughts, and changing responses, but he doesn’t apply the particular phrase “a change of mind” to this changing aspect of God’s mental life. He seems to prefer to reserve it for the fallible sort of changes we make in response to NEW information. That’s OK. It’s semantics. A change of mind can certainly cover the fallible thinking we finite beings do. And after Alan’s explained how and why he’s limiting “literal change of mind” to this fallible way of thinking, he still agrees God experiences changing states of mind and emotion, and changes his responses and actions. So there’s no substantial difference between us.
Confusing enough?
Correct me if I’ve gotten your view wrong Alan.
Blessings,
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Calvin_and_Hops
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 21
| Posted 4/10/2004 4:09 PM (GMT -6) | | Not bad for 4:51 AM in Beirut.
Thanks.
But how do you keep it from just being calculus. It sounded a bit like that at the beginning of what you wrote. But I don't intuit that you think it is. (Scripture isn't.)
Tom, Alan? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 4/10/2004 9:18 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Calvin_and_Hops
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 21
| Posted 4/11/2004 2:22 AM (GMT -6) | | I think you are about to make a point. So, here:
quote:
cal·cu·lus
a. The branch of mathematics that deals with limits and the differentiation and integration of functions of one or more variables.
b. A method of analysis or calculation using a special symbolic notation.
c. The combined mathematics of differential calculus and integral calculus.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 4/11/2004 9:38 AM (GMT -6) | | Naw, no point to make. My blabbing on a 4 AM was torture enough for you all. Seems to me like much of theology, of life in fact, is calculus (if calculus is dealing with limitations and the differentiation between variables). Oh yeah. But I don't think it's just that. We can know some things.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Calvin_and_Hops
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 21
| Posted 4/11/2004 12:45 PM (GMT -6) | | | Then I'm off the hook too. I see that calculus is specific. I just meant that it sounded mechanical, but that I'm sure you understand it in a personal vein. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 4/12/2004 1:35 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Tom,
After looking over your responses and thinking over the issue some more, I think you're right that our disagreement is at least mostly verbal. I would like to restate my position more precisely if I can so that we can see more clearly where we agree and where we disagree.
First, I take the phrase "change of mind" to mean a change of intention, resolution, volition, or will (I see these as synonymous for present purposes). Thus for God to "change his mind" would mean that he intends or wills to do X at one time and then subsequently drops his intention to do X and forms an intention to do, not X, but Y.
Second, I assume that God is infinitely intelligent, i.e., that God knows all possibilities and can anticipate all possible contingencies.
Third, based on God's infinite intelligence, it is perfectly within God's power to decide ahead of time (i.e., to form an intention as to) how he will respond to any conceivable situation. Further, there is no good reason for God not to do so. It wouldn't enhance his responsiveness to creation in any way.
Fourth, some of God's intentions are unconditional, meaning that God resolves to do X and there is no contingent circumstance in which he would not do X. And some of God's intentions are conditional, meaning that God resolves to do X provided that certain contingent circumstances obtain and resolves not to do X provided that other contingent circumstances obtain.
Fifth, God's expectations as to which conditional resolutions will probably be enacted may change as contingent circumstances change.
Sixth, God's enactment of a conditional resolution, i.e., his actually carrying out the action specified in the consequent of the conditional, does not involve any further volition or resolution on God's part. All that is required is an exercise of power to carry out his already formed volition/intention/resolution.
Seventh, Scriptural descriptions of God as "repenting" or "changing his mind" are figurative, not literal. That is, I don't think God literally "changes his mind" in the sense defined above. The literal significance of such Biblical descriptions in my view is that God is resourceful and flexible, that he has a "plan B" to implement whenever the conditions for "plan A" don't work out as expected. This is not "changing his mind" because no new resolution/intention/volition is formed. All that changes is God's expectations about which conditional resolution will be enacted.
God bless,
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 4/12/2004 1:45 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Starkman,
Thanks for your reply!
quote:
... "And God repented" or "And God changed His mind." For if we are to say that these statements are anthropomorphisms, then we must ask what the anthropomorphism means; what is God really mean if He does not meang what He said He means?! Even anthropomorphisms are vehicles for communicating meaning.
I agree.
quote:
Next, what is it to repent? When we are told to repent, the context is sin that's fomenting a resolve by repentence. This is obviously not what it means, though, when God is said to repent.
I agree, again! I do have to backtrack here, and say that the OV does not take "repent" in the most literal sense. Pass the humble pie...
quote:
The Open View, then, seeks to grasp the intended meaning of statements like "And God repented" and "And God changed His mind." It doesn't take much to see what's going on in these kinds of passages if we apply simple, normal, everyday communicative skills when interpreting; not overworking or underworking any particular method of communication.
That is helpful, thank you! I must revise my question.
After rereading Greg Boyd's discussion on Nineveh, I think he would abandon the invincible chessmaster analogy, and say that God really did change his plan:
"If God was certain from all eternity that he wouldn't bring disaster on his people [referencing Ex. 32:14], isn't Scripture wrong when it explicitly states that God planned on doing just this?" (Divine Foreknowledge, p. 36).
So the invincible chess master is no more. And thus all my questions about the verses above that say that God's plan does always succeed apply.
Not only that! With the Ninevites, it must therefore have been God's plan to destroy them. He changed his plan when they repented, and did not destroy them (OV speaking here). Thus God frustrated his own plan, by sending Jonah to warn them! His plan to destroy them failed, they repented, and thus he had to change his plan, and forgive them!
So now I ask why God sent Jonah, if God's plan was to destroy the Ninevites, why didn't he just do it right away? I really think he should have thought of that, chess master or not...
And then also I will quote one of the verses that say God does succeed, without fail:
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.
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 | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 4/12/2004 2:50 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Lee Merrill
And then also I will quote one of the verses that say God does succeed, without fail:
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.
The OV does not deny this verse and those like it. What the Open View denies is that God's will is ALWAYS unfailingly done on earth as it is in heaven. "the plans of the Lord stand firm forever, the purposes of his heart through all generations" can simply mean that God's overarching, "big picture" plans and purposes stand firm forever.
For instance, the NT reveals very plainly that it is NOT God's will that ANY should perish, and yet many passages in the same NT reveal that many people do in fact perish (universalist claims aside).
As to Nineveh and Jonah, it seems the most natural reading of the narrative would indicate that God was not absolutely certain the Ninevites would in fact repent, and that this was a very real contingency--"Repent or perish," with the "or perish" part implied in Jonah's prophecy (even if Jonah didn't express it, he acknowledges God's merciful character in ch. 4:1-2).
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 4/12/2004 3:01 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Lee Merrill
After rereading Greg Boyd's discussion on Nineveh, I think he would abandon the invincible chessmaster analogy, and say that God really did change his plan:
"If God was certain from all eternity that he wouldn't bring disaster on his people [referencing Ex. 32:14], isn't Scripture wrong when it explicitly states that God planned on doing just this?" (Divine Foreknowledge, p. 36).
So the invincible chess master is no more. And thus all my questions about the verses above that say that God's plan does always succeed apply.
You're argument moves too quickly here, Lee. First, as I've argued repeatedly here open theism is not committed to the notion that God literally changes his mind in the sense of changing his plans. Second, Greg's comment about God's not having always planned on bringing disaster on Nineveh may only mean that God had no unconditional plan to destroy Nineveh. It would indeed be strange if God had unconditionally planned to destroy Nineveh come what may and then didn't. Instead, I take Greg's view to be that God planned to destroy Nineveh IF they didn't repent--a conditional resolution. If destroying Nineveh was only a conditional plan, then there's absolutely no inconsistency with the infinitely intelligent chessmaster analogy.
Regards,
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 4/12/2004 3:24 PM (GMT -6) | | Thanks for your replies!
quote:
Alan: You're argument moves too quickly here, Lee. First, as I've argued repeatedly here open theism is not committed to the notion that God literally changes his mind in the sense of changing his plans.
Yes, I should have addressed Starkman's view (and yours and John's and others' view), rather than going off on a tangent on what I thought Greg Boyd's view was. Another helping of that there humble pie, please...
quote:
I take Greg's view to be that God planned to destroy Nineveh IF they didn't repent--a conditional resolution. If destroying Nineveh was only a conditional plan, then there's absolutely no inconsistency with the infinitely intelligent chessmaster analogy.
What got me started here is the assumption that God's overall plan was to destroy Ninevah. Now if that wasn't his overall plan, then what was it? It most probably was a plan to not destroy Ninevah. And thus he sent Jonah. Well and good. But then we have to say that Greg Boyd says he nevertheless did change his sub-plan. But then his sub-plan was to destroy Ninevah. But that cannot be part of a plan to not destroy them. That's where I'm confused. It won't do to include not-A as a sub-plan in an overall plan to do A. You may consider the possibility of not-A, certainly. But not intend not-A as a subplan on your way to getting to A.
Now back to the other view!
quote:
John: the most natural reading of the narrative would indicate that God was not absolutely certain the Ninevites would in fact repent, and that this was a very real contingency--"Repent or perish," with the "or perish" part implied in Jonah's prophecy (even if Jonah didn't express it, he acknowledges God's merciful character in ch. 4:1-2).
Then I need to know: what was God's overall plan? To destroy them? Then he should have not sent Jonah. To save them? Then by not knowing how they would respond, his plan could have failed. Thus, the chess master is not invincible, it seems...
But maybe I'm off track, again. I may develop a taste for humble pie!
Blessings,
Lee
P.S. Just thought of an alternative here, though. You could say that God had an overall objective over and above the Ninevites repenting or not repenting, such as to maximize his glory in the situation, either way. That's possible. I'll have to think about this some more...
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 4/12/2004 3:48 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Lee Merrill
What got me started here is the assumption that God's overall plan was to destroy Ninevah. Now if that wasn't his overall plan, then what was it? It most probably was a plan to not destroy Ninevah. And thus he sent Jonah. Well and good. But then we have to say that Greg Boyd says he nevertheless did change his sub-plan.
Actually, it is Scripture itself (not Greg Boyd) which reveals that God changed his mind/repented of the evil that he had intended to do--because they repented
quote:
But then his sub-plan was to destroy Ninevah. But that cannot be part of a plan to not destroy them. That's where I'm confused. It won't do to include not-A as a sub-plan in an overall plan to do A. You may consider the possibility of not-A, certainly. But not intend not-A as a subplan on your way to getting to A.
I think you're getting tripped up in all-or-nothing thinking. The destruction of Nineveh was conditioned upon them NOT repenting, while their deliverance was likewise conditioned upon them repenting of their evil works. The situation was truly contingent.
quote:
quote:
John: the most natural reading of the narrative would indicate that God was not absolutely certain the Ninevites would in fact repent, and that this was a very real contingency--"Repent or perish," with the "or perish" part implied in Jonah's prophecy (even if Jonah didn't express it, he acknowledges God's merciful character in ch. 4:1-2).
Then I need to know: what was God's overall plan? To destroy them? Then he should have not sent Jonah. To save them? Then by not knowing how they would respond, his plan could have failed. Thus, the chess master is not invincible, it seems...
It seems to me, based on the following:
3:10 When God saw their actions—they turned from their evil way of living!—God relented concerning the judgment he had threatened them with and he did not destroy them.
4:1 This terribly displeased1 Jonah and he became very angry. 4:2 He prayed to the Lord and said, “Oh, Lord, this is just what I thought would happen when I was in my own country. This is what I tried to prevent by trying to escape to Tarshish!—because I knew that you are gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and abounding in mercy, and one who relents concerning threatened judgment. (NET Bible)
ISTM...that God's plan involved a clear contingency, that the overall biblical revelation is that he is "slow to anger, abounding in mercy, and one who RELENTS concerning threatened judgement (when those He is threatening actually repent, which is not a foregone conclusion).
Mercy triumphs over judgement. God never takes pleasure in the death of the wicked:
Ezek. 18:32 For I take no delight in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live!
So to sum up, at least this Open Theist would say that God's plan involved a real contingency in this case (and in many, many others similar to this). God says "I will destroy them for their wickedness (which is completely just and righteous of Him to do), and IF they "repent at the preaching of Jonah," God has a built in preferred condition that they not perish but receive MERCY if in fact they repent.
Luke 11:32 The people of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented when Jonah preached to them—and now, something greater than Jonah is here!
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 4/12/2004 3:59 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi John,
quote:
So to sum up, at least this Open Theist would say that God's plan involved a real contingency in this case (and in many, many others similar to this). God says "I will destroy them for their wickedness (which is completely just and righteous of Him to do), and IF they "repent at the preaching of Jonah," God has a built in preferred condition that they not perish but receive MERCY if in fact they repent.
That's fine, but then there was no overall plan that they repent or not repent. But see the P.S. in my previous post! I just edited it after you posted. Oops. So I will repeat it here:
"You could say that God had an overall objective over and above the Ninevites repenting or not repenting, such as to maximize his glory in the situation, either way. That's possible."
I think you may be saying God has no overall plan, just contingencies and preferences. Will think about that, too. 'Tis getting late, and I'm (theoretically) getting up early...
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 | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 4/12/2004 4:06 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Lee Merrill
Hi John,
quote:
So to sum up, at least this Open Theist would say that God's plan involved a real contingency in this case (and in many, many others similar to this). God says "I will destroy them for their wickedness (which is completely just and righteous of Him to do), and IF they "repent at the preaching of Jonah," God has a built in preferred condition that they not perish but receive MERCY if in fact they repent.
That's fine, but then there was no overall plan that they repent or not repent. But see the P.S. in my previous post! I just edited it after you posted. Oops. So I will repeat it here:
"You could say that God had an overall objective over and above the Ninevites repenting or not repenting, such as to maximize his glory in the situation, either way. That's possible."
I think you may be saying God has no overall plan, just contingencies and preferences. Will think about that, too. 'Tis getting late, and I'm (theoretically) getting up early...
Blessings,
Lee
It is a bit difficult (and indeed, forced) to try and extrapolate an "overall plan" from this one relatively brief episode in history. For reasons I have stated previously in this thread, I would not agree at all that "God has NO overall plan." And I don't see why the Open View would necessitate disbelief in God having an overall plan for history. If you're referring to Nineveh itself, I would say God's overall plan is to bless and not curse, to show mercy and not judgment, whenever possible.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 4/13/2004 12:55 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi John,
Thanks for your response...
quote:
It is a bit difficult (and indeed, forced) to try and extrapolate an "overall plan" from this one relatively brief episode in history. For reasons I have stated previously in this thread, I would not agree at all that "God has NO overall plan." And I don't see why the Open View would necessitate disbelief in God having an overall plan for history. If you're referring to Nineveh itself, I would say God's overall plan is to bless and not curse, to show mercy and not judgment, whenever possible.
But I think you are still saying though that God has no one aim that can be said to be "God's plan", in the sense of the invincible chess master analogy, which for sure will be accomplished. What we have are contingencies and preferences, but not one outcome that can be guaranteed. So then I think you do have on your plate the verses that speak of God's plan always being accomplished! Also, does the chess master now consider losing as one possibility, and plan even a response to that?
But as an alternative! You could say God had an overall plan with the Ninevites that he didn't state, that would succeed either way the Ninevites chose. I can't refute that, it doesn't seem to fit very well, but I can't disprove that contention.
Instead, now I have to change my ground, and ask "what is guaranteed?" Well, all God's promises and prophecies are guaranteed. So let us examine two of them:
RO 11:26 And so all Israel will be saved...
Now this will certainly happen, I think everyone agrees to that. But if all Israel being saved requires free-will choices, I don't see how God can make a plan that will guarantee this. They may all choose to refuse him.
REV 21:4 There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.
Similarly here, if people retain their free-will in heaven, how can there be (for sure) no more pain? For free-will implies a possible choice to sin, and thus that possibility has to be planned for, as a real (however small) possibility. But then sin also implies pain, I think, thus how can God ever guarantee "no more pain"?
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 4/13/2004 7:43 PM (GMT -6) | | Lee: But I think you are still saying though that God has no one aim that can be said to be "God's plan", in the sense of the invincible chess master analogy, which for sure will be accomplished. What we have are contingencies and preferences, but not one outcome that can be guaranteed.
Tom: We do have an outcome that can be guaranteed—victory. Kasparov can guarantee that he “will” win at chess if he plays my eight year old son (or a lot of people). And he can guarantee certain moves and sub-outcomes throughout the game. But there will be much he can’t guarantee about how he wins. Determined outcome but open routes. A “plan” can embrace the outcome or the routes, and a lot of things some unconditional and conditional. God can guarantee that the unconditional plans succeed. He can’t guarantee that the conditional plans succeed. I don’t quite get why you think chess is a bad analogy for expressing this much.
Lee: So then I think you do have on your plate the verses that speak of God's plan always being accomplished! Also, does the chess master now consider losing as one possibility, and plan even a response to that?
Tom: No, God doesn’t contemplate a response to losing in the ultimate sense, for that’s not possible. Kasparov CAN’T lose to my son.
Lee: But as an alternative! You could say God had an overall plan with the Ninevites that he didn't state that would succeed either way the Ninevites chose. I can't refute that, it doesn't seem to fit very well, but I can't disprove that contention.
Tom: I don’t think it fits very well either. There’s no reason to believe that God had an unconditional plan for Nineveh that was fulfilled. Nineveh is not, in and of itself, the beginning and end of God’s ultimate goal for creation, so there doesn’t have to be anything unconditional with respect to Nineveh. True, we could say that the one unconditional aspect about every future event is that God will act in a way that is just, holy, and best contributes to his glory. I’m sure that part of the overall plan for Nineveh was unconditional, but since it’s not particular to Nineveh (it’s a given unconditional aspect of God’s actions always and everywhere) I don’t see the benefit in mentioning it with respect to Nineveh.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 4/14/2004 3:27 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Lee Merrill
But all analogies are certainly inadequate when explaining God's plan. But I don't see how God can be said to "win" if we say God will save "all Israel", if he has to plan for them choosing either way. Or how "there will be no more pain" if there is still a possibility of sinning in heaven.
In the context of the Roman epistle, especially chs. 9-11, "All Israel" refers to all those who are actually faithful to the Abrahamic covenant, not all those who can trace their human geneaology back to Abraham. As John the Baptist said, "God is able to make of these stones children unto Abraham." And as Paul said:
Romans 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: 7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
John 8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. 43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. 45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.
Romans 2:28 For a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. 29Rather, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart—it is spiritual and not literal. Such a person receives praise not from others but from God.
Romans 9:30 What then are we to say? Gentiles, who did not strive for righteousness, have attained it, that is, righteousness through faith; 31but Israel, who did strive for the righteousness that is based on the law, did not succeed in fulfilling that law. 32Why not? Because they did not strive for it on the basis of faith, but as if it were based on works.
Romans 3:3 What if some were unfaithful? Will their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God?
Romans 4:16 For this reason it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his descendants, not only to the adherents of the law but also to those who share the faith of Abraham (for he is the father of all of us,
17 as it is written, ‘I have made you the father of many nations’) —in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist. NRSV
As to the possibility of sinning even in heaven, Greg Boyd makes an excellent argument that "libertarian free will becomes compatibilistic free will" in heaven. I think most Open Theists would agree with him. When we enter the revelation of God's glory that is heaven, all possible motives to sin will be purged from our hearts and minds. We will have learned obedience is the only way to true happiness, and we will have learned perfectly sin's deadliness and what it cost the Son of God, so much so that we will forever bow in total worship to Him.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 4/15/2004 1:46 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi John and Laika!
quote:
Lee: But I don't see how God can be said to "win" if we say God will save "all Israel", if he has to plan for them choosing either way. Or how "there will be no more pain" if there is still a possibility of sinning in heaven.
John: In the context of the Roman epistle, especially chs. 9-11, "All Israel" refers to all those who are actually faithful to the Abrahamic covenant, not all those who can trace their human geneaology back to Abraham. As John the Baptist said, "God is able to make of these stones children unto Abraham." And as Paul said:
Romans 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: 7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
This is all fine, whoever the group referred to as "all Israel" means, I still wonder how God's plan cannot possibly fail, if it depends on free-will human choice, where we must say they must make one decision, and not another.
quote:
As to the possibility of sinning even in heaven, Greg Boyd makes an excellent argument that "libertarian free will becomes compatibilistic free will" in heaven. I think most Open Theists would agree with him. When we enter the revelation of God's glory that is heaven, all possible motives to sin will be purged from our hearts and minds. We will have learned obedience is the only way to true happiness, and we will have learned perfectly sin's deadliness and what it cost the Son of God, so much so that we will forever bow in total worship to Him.
Certainly we will not want to sin. But is there still a possibility of sinning? Here is how someone on the net defines "compatibilistic free will":
"I always do what I most want to do, and I act on that strongest motive or inclination at the moment of decision. This theory of human freedom is known as 'compatibilism' or 'soft-determinism' " (Jojo Ma).
Jojo continues: "If it’s true that I always act according to my strongest inclination, and in fact, I must choose according to my inclinations, isn’t this determinism?"
You may read Jojo's response here: www.dsuonline.org/why6.htm. I would ask this of the OV people, though, how is this view any different from determinism? And the question that gets posed again and again in OV forums, "Doesn't God want people in heaven to freely choose to love him?" So they are not robots? Thus implying that there is always a possibility of not loving God...
quote:
Lee: But all analogies are certainly inadequate when explaining God's plan.
Laika: Even the ones Jesus told?
OK, incomplete, partial pictures. I revise my sentence 
Had a further thought on the Ninevites! How can we say that God had no particular purpose here? Surely salvation of people is part of God's purpose, and he wanted them to repent. So he sent Jonah. And sent a storm, and prepared a fish. All indications here are that God is acting with a purpose. And at the end of the book, God says he is concerned, implying that he wanted them to repent.
So how can we say that God wasn't planning either way? That it was fine with him if they were destroyed, and fine too if they repented?
JNH 4:11 Should I not be concerned about that great city?
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 | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 4/15/2004 4:21 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Lee Merrill
Hi John and Laika!
Hi yourself! 
quote:
Lee: But I don't see how God can be said to "win" if we say God will save "all Israel", if he has to plan for them choosing either way. Or how "there will be no more pain" if there is still a possibility of sinning in heaven.
John: In the context of the Roman epistle, especially chs. 9-11, "All Israel" refers to all those who are actually faithful to the Abrahamic covenant, not all those who can trace their human geneaology back to Abraham. As John the Baptist said, "God is able to make of these stones children unto Abraham." And as Paul said:
Romans 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: 7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
Lee said:
This is all fine, whoever the group referred to as "all Israel" means, I still wonder how God's plan cannot possibly fail, if it depends on free-will human choice, where we must say they must make one decision, and not another.
John replies:
Dr. John Sanders refers to God's "general sovereignty" (the free will theism view) as opposed to his "specific sovereignty" (the no-risk/deterministic view). That is, God's general plan for mankind is that people freely choose to love Him and love each other. Inasmuch as many, many people in history have in fact already chosen the love of God, His general purposes have in fact NOT failed. "Has the word of God failed?" Paul asks in Romans 9. Certainly not, for they are not all Israel which are of Israel. (Meaning, not everybody who calls themselves a child of God really is). But God has preserved for himself a remnant. Speaking probabilistically, based on percentages God's plan has not and will not fail. He WILL indeed have a people (and He already does, based on what we know of the history of God's people throughout the centuries).
quote:
As to the possibility of sinning even in heaven, Greg Boyd makes an excellent argument that "libertarian free will becomes compatibilistic free will" in heaven. I think most Open Theists would agree with him. When we enter the revelation of God's glory that is heaven, all possible motives to sin will be purged from our hearts and minds. We will have learned obedience is the only way to true happiness, and we will have learned perfectly sin's deadliness and what it cost the Son of God, so much so that we will forever bow in total worship to Him.
Lee says:
Certainly we will not want to sin. But is there still a possibility of sinning? Here is how someone on the net defines "compatibilistic free will":
"I always do what I most want to do, and I act on that strongest motive or inclination at the moment of decision. This theory of human freedom is known as 'compatibilism' or 'soft-determinism' " (Jojo Ma).
Jojo continues: "If it’s true that I always act according to my strongest inclination, and in fact, I must choose according to my inclinations, isn’t this determinism?"
You may read Jojo's response here: www.dsuonline.org/why6.htm. I would ask this of the OV people, though, how is this view any different from determinism?
John replies:
It is different from determinism, in that the Open View does not posit a causal determiner back of the human will, by which man's desires are given/determined by God. Man has in and of himself the power of contrary choice in moral matters; i.e., libertarian free will. In soft determinism, our DESIRES are determined by God, and our choices are determined by our desires; thus, God determines our choices deterministically, however "soft" it may seem. In the Open View, God doesn't determine our choices, WE do. I for one certainly agree with Edwards insomuch as we obviously do always choose the most powerful desire in any given situation. However, where I differ with Edwards would be in the deterministic causation of one's desires by God.
Lee asked:
And the question that gets posed again and again in OV forums, "Doesn't God want people in heaven to freely choose to love him?" So they are not robots? Thus implying that there is always a possibility of not loving God...
John:
We will not be robots, any more than angels who have never sinned are robots in their worship and service of the King. We will simply have passed through this probationary period of earthbound existence, and will have "learned obedience through our sufferings." Sin will have lost its deceptive power over us completely, and Satan, the Tempter, will be able to tempt us no more.
Lee said:
Had a further thought on the Ninevites! How can we say that God had no particular purpose here? Surely salvation of people is part of God's purpose, and he wanted them to repent. So he sent Jonah. And sent a storm, and prepared a fish. All indications here are that God is acting with a purpose. And at the end of the book, God says he is concerned, implying that he wanted them to repent.
So how can we say that God wasn't planning either way? That it was fine with him if they were destroyed, and fine too if they repented?
JNH 4:11 Should I not be concerned about that great city?
John replies:
In saying "either way," I think you are still getting tripped up by all-or-nothing thinking, Lee. (No offense intended). Certainly we can gather from the story of Jonah that God desired for Nineveh to repent, or else why bother sending a prophet at all? However, it seems that God doesn't always get what He wants. It's not that He has no plan either way, but rather that he has a desire, purpose, and plan as to how to accomplish His goals. If His goals are not met because of the hardness of people's hearts, he has a contingency plan. This is in the Bible literally from cover to cover. "If...then..."
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 4/16/2004 5:43 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi again, John! Greetings to your greeting to my greeting!
quote:
Lee: But I don't see how God can be said to "win" if we say God will save "all Israel", if he has to plan for them choosing either way.
John: In the context of the Roman epistle, especially chs. 9-11, "All Israel" refers to all those who are actually faithful to the Abrahamic covenant, not all those who can trace their human geneaology back to Abraham. ... That is, God's general plan for mankind is that people freely choose to love Him and love each other. Inasmuch as many, many people in history have in fact already chosen the love of God, His general purposes have in fact NOT failed. ... He WILL indeed have a people (and He already does, based on what we know of the history of God's people throughout the centuries).
But I think what you seem to be saying is that "Israel" here means simply "all the people who will happen to choose God." That's not a prophecy, though. I think God has more in mind, here! I think he's saying that all the descendants of Israel genealogically some day (on earth at least), will be saved, without exception. I think God is predicting human choices, and this is not simply labeling people after they decide.
quote:
In the Open View, God doesn't determine our choices, WE do. I for one certainly agree with Edwards insomuch as we obviously do always choose the most powerful desire in any given situation. However, where I differ with Edwards would be in the deterministic causation of one's desires by God.
But how can we be said to choose freely, regardless of the source of our desires, if our desires are a given for us, and predict our choices?
quote:
We will not be robots, any more than angels who have never sinned are robots in their worship and service of the King. We will simply have passed through this probationary period of earthbound existence, and will have "learned obedience through our sufferings." Sin will have lost its deceptive power over us completely, and Satan, the Tempter, will be able to tempt us no more.
But Satan sinned in the very presence of God, in heaven itself!
EZE 28:14-15 You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones. You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you.
So how come saints in heaven can never ever sin like that? Surely Satan wasn't created with evil desires, and he lived in the very presence of God, blameless for a while, but he got the ball rolling, with sin and evil...
I do agree that people in heaven are not robots, that they have choices, freedom, though not free will. They can't choose to sin, it's impossible, but there is still room in God's will, it's not a monorail.
quote:
Lee: Had a further thought on the Ninevites! ... So how can we say that God wasn't planning either way? That it was fine with him if they were destroyed, and fine too if they repented?
JNH 4:11 Should I not be concerned about that great city?
John replies:
In saying "either way," I think you are still getting tripped up by all-or-nothing thinking, Lee. ... Certainly we can gather from the story of Jonah that God desired for Nineveh to repent, or else why bother sending a prophet at all? However, it seems that God doesn't always get what He wants.
Thus the invincible chess master can have his plan fail, I think. But I don't think that's possible:
JOB 42:2 "I know that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted."
quote:
It's not that He has no plan either way, but rather that he has a desire, purpose, and plan as to how to accomplish His goals. If His goals are not met because of the hardness of people's hearts, he has a contingency plan. This is in the Bible literally from cover to cover. "If...then..."
OK, but then his contingency plan includes failure! Alas, no, I can't step up to that:
PR 19:21 Many are the plans in a man's heart, but the counsel of the Lord, it will stand.
PR 21:30 There is no wisdom, no insight, no plan that can succeed against the Lord.
ISA 8:10 Devise your strategy, but it will be thwarted; propose your plan, but it will not stand, for God is with us.
Yes, there are conditions expressed in Scripture, but these speak (I think) from our perspective, and do not tell us of contingencies in God's plan. No plan can beat God's plan, no choice men can make will frustrate his purpose...
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 1:46 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 |
|
|