Revisiting a Syllogism That Supports Universalism

[lancia]

Sorry… but your explanations are wholly unconvincing. Here is the determination and declaration of destruction…

Jon 1:2; 3:2, 4 “Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry out against it; for their wickedness has come up before Me.” — “Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and preach to it the message that I tell you.” — And Jonah began to enter the city on the first day’s walk. Then he cried out and said, “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!”

THAT THERE ABOVE IS the declared decree of God’s determined will… deny it as you yourself will, however, there it is in black and white (or red), as per any sensible and reasoned logical reading of the text.

No, that is a not a determined will . . . it is a warning. If it were a determination, there would be no need for a warning that God worked so persistently to get Jonah to deliver. The reason why God sent Jonah to Nineveh was to warn the people to turn from their evil ways. That warning is a huge part of God’s plan, again as stated here.

“If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned.” (Jeremiah 18:7-8)

So, again, if they turn from their evil ways, they will be spared, as part of God’s plan. God will relent from the destruction He warned about. If they don’t turn from their evil ways, they will be destroyed, as part of God’s plan. You cannot simply ignore the one at the expense of the other. The two parts go together, as the Jeremiah verses show.

As it happened, they did turn from their evil ways and thus God did relent, i.e., let up, on his threatened destruction, as stated in Jonah 3:10.

“When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, He relented and did not bring on them the destruction He had threatened.”

[davo]

So you just continue to IGNORE BOTH the Hebrew and Greek texts… “God repented” — ok

[Origen]

So you just continue to IGNORE BOTH the Hebrew and Greek texts… “God repented” — ok

God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good? (Num.23:19)

Also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind. (1 Sam.15:29)

My covenant I will not violate, Nor will I alter the utterance of My lips. (Psa.89:34)

but Jesus became a priest with an oath by the One who said to Him: “The Lord has sworn and will not change His mind, ‘You are a priest forever.’” (Heb.7:21)

Thus by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope set before us may be strongly encouraged. (Heb.6:8)

in the hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began. (Titus 1:2)

I, the LORD, have spoken; it is coming and I will act. I will not relent, and I will not pity and I will not be sorry; according to your ways and according to your deeds I will judge you," declares the Lord GOD. (Ezek. 24:14)

So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it. (Isa.55:11)

For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. (Rom.11:29)

Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, with whom there is no change or shifting shadow. (James 1:17)

“When the inspired writers speak of God’s repenting, as Jeremiah 18:8, and Amos 7:3-6, they are to be understood as speaking figuratively, and adapting their language to our apprehensions. They only mean that God changes the course of his providence toward mankind, according as he sees a change in their dispositions and actions. See note on Genesis 6:6.” biblehub.com/commentaries/numbers/23-19.htm

[lancia]

So you just continue to IGNORE BOTH the Hebrew and Greek texts… “God repented” — ok

I’ve thoroughly discussed, above, the issue of the Hebrew word nacham, including a list of how it’s translated in the various Bible versions and the importance of context in choosing which definition was likely intended by the writer. If you don’t accept or even acknowledge what I said, then I can do no more.

[davo]

I’ve thoroughly discussed, above, the issue of the Hebrew word nacham, including a list of how it’s translated in the various Bible versions and the importance of context in choosing which definition was likely intended by the writer.

lancia… do you truly consider your cut and pasting 14 renditions of Jon 3:10 as having “thoroughly discussed” the respective Greek and Hebrew of said word… REALLY!? Even a cursory count of your list favours “repented” for the Greek and Hebrew — but I have given both lexical and other material demonstrating to the contrary of the position you are advocating.

Well, let me ask you this — yes or no… do you agree with Jonah that… “God repented of the evil which he had said he would do to them”
Was Jonah right or was Jonah wrong

[Origen]

I’ve thoroughly discussed, above, the issue of the Hebrew word nacham, including a list of how it’s translated in the various Bible versions and the importance of context in choosing which definition was likely intended by the writer.

lancia… do you truly consider your cut and pasting 14 renditions of Jon 3:10 as having “thoroughly discussed” the respective Greek and Hebrew of said word… REALLY!? Even a cursory count of your list favours “repented” for the Greek and Hebrew — but I have given both lexical and other material demonstrating to the contrary of the position you are advocating.

Well, let me ask you this — yes or no… do you agree with Jonah that… “God repented of the evil which he had said he would do to them”
Was Jonah right or was Jonah wrong

"And God repented of the evil - This was no real change in God; rather, the object of His threatening was, that He might not do what He threatened. God’s threatenings are conditional, “unless they repent,”… God said afterward by Jeremiah, Jeremiah 18:7-8. At what “instant I shall speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up and to pull down and to destroy it, if that nation, against whom I had pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.” " biblehub.com/commentaries/jonah/3-10.htm

biblehub.com/commentaries/jonah/3-10.htm

God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good? (Num.23:19)

Also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind. (1 Sam.15:29)

Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, with whom there is no change or shifting shadow. (James 1:17)

[lancia]

I’ve thoroughly discussed, above, the issue of the Hebrew word nacham, including a list of how it’s translated in the various Bible versions and the importance of context in choosing which definition was likely intended by the writer.

lancia… do you truly consider your cut and pasting 14 renditions of Jon 3:10 as having “thoroughly discussed” the respective Greek and Hebrew of said word… REALLY!? Even a cursory count of your list favours “repented” for the Greek and Hebrew — but I have given both lexical and other material demonstrating to the contrary of the position you are advocating.

No, cutting and pasting 14 renditions of Jonah 3:10 was not all I did, and you know it. Time for some honesty and charitability in dealing with others’ comments. I also mentioned in my answer that I discussed above “the importance of context in choosing which definition was likely intended by the writer.” Context shows how some definitions of nacham make more sense than do others. “Repenting,” and “changing one’s mind,” do not make as much sense as definitions of nacham in the context of the story as “relenting” does. Part of that context also includes the Jeremiah verses I brought up, verses that are absolutely essential to understanding this whole incident. For some strange reason, these Jeremiah verses, as appropriate as they are, have been largely ignored in responses here. That is simply astounding.

Well, let me ask you this — yes or no… do you agree with Jonah that… “God repented of the evil which he had said he would do to them”

No, not unless one chooses a non-standard definition of repented that fits context. It seems obvious that the translation of nacham as “repent,” when God is being described, is an anthropomorphism, and as such it is not meant to be taken as a literal truth of His behavior.

[Paidion]

Craig has said that foreknowledge does not

limit freedom to choose.
I agree that foreknowledge does not limit freedom to choose. It’s the other way around. Freedom to choose limits foreknowledge. I will go even further. It annihilates any foreknowledge that concerns people’s choices.

ThIs is not to say that there are excellent PREDICTIONS that have been made about people’s choices. If a criminal thrusts a gun against Joe’s head and says,“Give me all your money or you’re dead meat!” I would confidently predict that Joe would give all his money to the thief. However, I wouldn’t KNOW that Joe would give him his money. Joe could choose to keep his money even with the likelihood that he would be killed.

If I claim that I KNOW Joe will give him his money, and he chooses not to do so, that is proof that I didn’t KNOW after all!

Jesus, knowing the heart and behaviour of Peter, predicted that Peter would deny him before the rooster crowed next morning. But that prediction didn’t force Peter to deny Him. However, if Jesus had KNOWN that Peter would deny him before the next morning, then Peter couldn’t have done otherwise. For if Peter hadn’t denied him, that would prove that Jesus hadn’t KNOWN that Peter would deny him.

[Origen]

The interpretation I offered makes sense if God didn’t KNOW the Ninevites would repent. And no one—even God—can know in advance what a free-will agent will choose. For if He did know in advance what you will choose, then you are not free to choose.

God can know in advance what a “free-will agent will choose” if God does not allow him to operate in free will at any particular moment and determines his/her choice, e.g. Ninevah & its king repenting.

The king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will. (Prov.21:1)

Ezra 6:22
And they observed the Feast of Unleavened Bread seven days with joy, for the LORD had caused them to rejoice, and had turned the heart of the king of Assyria toward them to encourage them in the work of the house of God, the God of Israel.

It may also be that through free will choices a person’s heart’s inclinations are formed which God can read & know how they will act in most situations. So when He warned Ninevah He may have known that their king would repent.

For example, suppose God knows you are going to eat an ice-cream cone at 2 P.M. tomorrow. That implies that you CANNOT refrain from eating an ice-cream cone at 2 P.M. tomorrow. For if through your free will, you could refrain and did refrain, then God didn’t know that you would eat an ice-cream cone at 2 P.M. tomorrow.

I should also make clear that God not knowing in advance what we will choose in no way implies that he is not omniscient. For God DOES know all that is possible to know. No one can know the future (in the absolute sense of “know”) because the future does not yet exist, and so there is nothing to know.

God knows the future since He declared many things in advance of their happening, such as OT prophecies re the Messiah. He knows Satan’s future that he will not repent of his free will and will be cast into the lake of fire.

I agree that foreknowledge does not limit freedom to choose. It’s the other way around. Freedom to choose limits foreknowledge. I will go even further. It annihilates any foreknowledge that concerns people’s choices.

ThIs is not to say that there are excellent PREDICTIONS that have been made about people’s choices. If a criminal thrusts a gun against Joe’s head and says,“Give me all your money or you’re dead meat!” I would confidently predict that Joe would give all his money to the thief. However, I wouldn’t KNOW that Joe would give him his money. Joe could choose to keep his money even with the likelihood that he would be killed.

If I claim that I KNOW Joe will give him his money, and he chooses not to do so, that is proof that I didn’t KNOW after all!

Jesus, knowing the heart and behaviour of Peter, predicted that Peter would deny him before the rooster crowed next morning. But that prediction didn’t force Peter to deny Him. However, if Jesus had KNOWN that Peter would deny him before the next morning, then Peter couldn’t have done otherwise. For if Peter hadn’t denied him, that would prove that Jesus hadn’t KNOWN that Peter would deny him.

I suggest that Jesus’ statement that Peter would deny Him exactly 3 times before the rooster crowed was not a mere prediction that could fail, but a statement of fact which would have made Jesus a liar if it didn’t occur.

And Jesus says to him, “Truly I say to you that now this night, before that the rooster crows twice, you yourself will deny Me three times.” (Mk.14:30)

[lancia]

I agree that foreknowledge does not limit freedom to choose.

However, if Jesus had KNOWN that Peter would deny him before the next morning, then Peter couldn’t have done otherwise.

These two statements of yours above seem to be contradictory. Care to explain?

[davo]

Well, let me ask you this — yes or no… do you agree with Jonah that… “God repented of the evil which he had said he would do to them”

No, not unless one chooses a non-standard definition of repented that fits context.

But WHY ignore the definition of μετανοέω <metanoeō> clearly meaning “repented” as per the word itself AND that which the context likewise establishes. On what grounds are you rejecting this lexical definition — surely not the context? Here is the broader context of “metanoeō”…

Jon 3:9-4:2 Who knows, God may yet repent and turn from his fierce anger, so that we perish not?” When God saw what they did, how they turned (Mt 12:41) from their evil way, God repented of the evil which he had said he would do to them; and he did not do it. But it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he was angry. And he prayed to the Lord and said, “I pray thee, Lord, is not this what I said when I was yet in my country? That is why I made haste to flee to Tarshish; for I knew that thou art a gracious God and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love, and repentest of evil.

Now, you’ve previously said…

Also the NIV’s “did not bring on them the destruction he had threatened” conveys a slightly but significantly different message than “the calamity that he had said he would bring upon them.” The contrast between “he had threatened” and “the calamity he said he would bring upon them” shows the NIV to be more closely aligned with the message of Jeremiah 18:7-8 (also NIV), in which the word warned is very similar to the word threatened in Jonah 3:10 of the NIV.

Well what else were you likely to say… of course the NIV followed in kind between both verses, i.e., the NIV has totally watered down completely the strong and accurate sense and meaning of metanoeō — repent. Just try exchanging “repent” with “relent” all the way through the NT, especially the gospels, and just see how weak and stupid you make it read… seriously?!

God’s extreme measures in getting Jonah to visit Nineveh to deliver the warning make no sense if He did not intend to spare Nineveh should it repent. Thus, the possibility of sparing Nineveh is very likely to have been part of His plan from the beginning.

Well of course it was… no one here is arguing against that. What you’re failing to see however is that His intent to be merciful was being thwarted by their actions… actions He then sent warning that IF such continued such would be dire for them. In accord they repented as then did He — theirs from sin and His from judgement thereupon — it’s ALL the same word metanoeō. Or are you going to be consistent and claim… nah, Nineveh “relented” — see what consistency does to your argument; that’s all I’m pointing out.

[Paidion]

These two statements of yours above seem to be contradictory. Care to explain?

Certainly. I can see why there appears to be an apparent contradiction.

I agree that foreknowledge does not limit freedom to choose.

Those who believe that God knows (I’m talking about the absolute sense of “know”) in advance what a person will choose, always point out that this foreknowledge does not CAUSE the person to choose. What I meant by my agreement is that if God COULD have foreknowledge, that foreknowledge would have no causal effect on anyone’s ability to choose. However, in fact, absolute foreknowledge and free will choice are contradictions in terms.

However, if Jesus had KNOWN that Peter would deny him before the next morning, then Peter couldn’t have done otherwise.

All I’m saying here, is that if Jesus knowing in advance (again in the absolute sense of “know”) that Peter would deny him before the next morning, logically implies that Peter would in fact deny Him the next morning. So how could Peter have done otherwise? For if, in fact, Peter HAD done otherwise, this would logically imply that Jesus DIDN’T know this in advance. However, such foreknowledge (if it COULD exist) would not be the CAUSE of Peter’s denial.

Let’s consider something that I CAN know. I might know that there is a can of coke on a given shelf. But my knowledge didn’t CAUSE the can of coke to be on the shelf.

[lancia]

But WHY ignore the definition of μετανοέω <metanoeō> clearly meaning “repented” as per the word itself AND that which the context likewise establishes. On what grounds are you rejecting this lexical definition — surely not the context?

As I have said repeatedly, the word repented can be rejected for several reasons, among them the rule established in Jeremiah, a rule I have repeated many times now. That rule, which exactly spells out the situation in Jonah and in other cases elsewhere in the Bible, shows that what God did in the Jonah story was follow a plan, not repent.

Well what else were you likely to say… of course the NIV followed in kind between both verses, i.e., the NIV has totally watered down completely the strong and accurate sense and meaning of metanoeō — repent. Just try exchanging “repent” with “relent” all the way through the NT, especially the gospels, and just see how weak and stupid you make it read… seriously?!

First, the NIV is not the only version to translate nacham to something other than repent, as you know. Many others such as the NKJV and the NASB do, too, as can be seen in the list above. Second, why would anyone exchange relent for repent throughout the NT? Both are perfectly good words when they are truly intended because context calls for them. It’s just that repent is not perfectly good in the Jonah story to describe God.

What you’re failing to see however is that His intent to be merciful was being thwarted by their actions… actions He then sent warning that IF such continued such would be dire for them. In accord they repented as then did He — theirs from sin and His from judgement thereupon — it’s ALL the same word metanoeō. Or are you going to be consistent and claim… nah, Nineveh “relented” — see what consistency does to your argument; that’s all I’m pointing out.

Repenting is a perfectly suitable translation of nacham when describing Nineveh, because that’s exactly what the people of Nineveh did. But it is not a suitable translation when describing God, because His not punishing Nineveh as was threatened was exactly according to the plan–IF THEY REPENTED OF THEIR EVIL WAYS, which they did.

So, there was no need for God to repent or change His mind because He was simply following the plan He had laid out for dealing with situations like Nineveh, a plan spelled out in detail in Jeremiah. There was no need to repent or change His mind because the outcomes were set beforehand. If Nineveh did not repent, they would be destroyed. If Nineveh did repent, they would be spared.

[lancia]

All I’m saying here, is that if Jesus knowing in advance (again in the absolute sense of “know”) that Peter would deny him before the next morning, logically implies that Peter would in fact deny Him the next morning. So how could Peter have done otherwise? For if, in fact, Peter HAD done otherwise, this would logically imply that Jesus DIDN’T know this in advance.

Did you see and hear the William Craig video I linked to in my last post to you? He in essence is saying that (in an analogous way) Peter could have done otherwise, but then God would have foreknown that, too.

He sets up the following in what he calls a fallacy in modal logic.

Premise 1: Necessarily if God foreknows X, X will happen.
Premise 2: God foreknows X.
Conclusion: Therefore, necessarily X will happen.

And if X happens necessarily, that means X is not free.

This is a fallacy, he says, because one cannot deduce from these two premises that necessarily X will happen. All that follows logically from the premises is that X will happen, but not necessarily. It could fail to happen. But if it were to fail to happen, then God would have foreknown something different.

What do you think?

[anon12438761]

I might put it differently:

Premise 1: If God foreknows X, X will necessarily happen.
Premise 2: God foreknows X.
X will necessarily happen

What do you think?

[Origen]

I might put it differently:

Premise 1: If God foreknows X, X will necessarily happen.
Premise 2: God foreknows X.
X will necessarily happen

What do you think?

Let’s say X = U = Universalism = All will be saved.

Premise 1: If God foreknows U, U will necessarily happen.
Premise 2: God foreknows U.
U will necessarily happen

Scripture reveals that God foreknows U & U will necessarily happen (Rom.5:18-19; 1 Cor.15:22-28; the OP syllogism, etc).

Does that rule out human libertarian free will? Certainly not. God may keep after the lost until He finds the last one (Lk.15). He has all eternity & unlimited offers of salvation for each individual. Mathematically it’s impossible for anyone to reject Him forever.

What do you think?

[anon12438761]

I think that as a syllogism it works just fine.

I’m with Paidion on the idea that God cannot ‘see’ a future that has not happened.
But I think God can cause the future that He wants.

We are talking about GOD, after all…

[davo]

There was no need to repent or change His mind because the outcomes were set beforehand. If Nineveh did not repent, they would be destroyed. If Nineveh did repent, they would be spared.

The “outcomes were set beforehand” i.e., determined — refuse and ruin OR repent and rejoice. The CHOICE was fully in their hands. They could know this BECAUSE such was set out clearly by God’s prophetic word either way.

Even using your preferred though somewhat inadequate rendition “relented” your logic, for sake of a better word, falls short no matter where you seek to drag it, e.g., IF there was no intended determination, even though the text clearly indicates otherwise, THEN there would be NOTHING to be “relented” from. From what could God relent IF there was NO determination?

And just for the record… metanoeō — meta = change & noeō = mind.

[Origen]

I think that as a syllogism it works just fine.

I’m with Paidion on the idea that God cannot ‘see’ a future that has not happened.
But I think God can cause the future that He wants.

We are talking about GOD, after all…

Isn’t that how He foreknows the future. Because He knows He will & “can cause the future that He wants”?

[Origen]

From what could God relent IF there was NO determination?

There was no - single - Divine determination in this situation, as per Jeremiah 18:7-8. There were multiple optional conceivable possibilities, including at least:

a. Ninevah not repent & be destroyed
b. Ninevah repent & be spared

Yet if God foreknew Ninevah would repent & if based on that the warning against them wasn’t a real possibility, then there was nothing for God to actually repent of. Why would God need to change His mind re something His mind knew wouldn’t happen anyway & would never be carried out, i.e. the threat to destroy Ninevah.

And, in any case, God doesn’t repent:

"And God repented of the evil - This was no real change in God; rather, the object of His threatening was, that He might not do what He threatened. God’s threatenings are conditional, “unless they repent,”… God said afterward by Jeremiah, Jeremiah 18:7-8. At what “instant I shall speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up and to pull down and to destroy it, if that nation, against whom I had pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.” " biblehub.com/commentaries/jonah/3-10.htm

biblehub.com/commentaries/jonah/3-10.htm

God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good? (Num.23:19)

Also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind. (1 Sam.15:29)

Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, with whom there is no change or shifting shadow. (James 1:17)