Happy Presidents Day! JK - enjoy your day anyway

Exegesis of Isaiah 46: Does It Support Open Theism? Introduction Isaiah 46 is often cited as a proof text for divine determinism and exhaustive foreknowledge, particularly by Reformed theologians. However, a careful exegetical examination reveals that this passage does not teach meticulous determinism but rather emphasizes God’s unique ability to accomplish His purposes in contrast to the lifeless idols of Babylon. This study will follow a rigorous exegetical approach—analyzing the historical context, examining the Hebrew text, and addressing theological implications—while demonstrating how Isaiah 46 aligns with Open Theism rather than classical Calvinism. Historical Context Isaiah 46 falls within a section of prophecy directed against Babylon. Israel, tempted by the seemingly dominant powers of the day, had fallen into idolatry. The context is one of polemical contrast between Yahweh and the false gods of the nations. The passage begins by describing how Babylon’s idols—Bel and Nebo—are carried as burdens by their worshipers, unable to save themselves or their followers (vv. 1-2). In contrast, Yahweh declares that He carries His people and has the power to bring about His purposes (vv. 3-4). The central point of the chapter is that Yahweh, unlike idols, is active and effective in history. Exegesis of Isaiah 46:9-10 The key verses often cited by determinists are Isaiah 46:9-10: "Remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose.’” (ESV) #Declaring the End from the Beginning Some argue that this phrase supports exhaustive divine foreknowledge of all future events. However, a careful examination of the Hebrew verb nagad (נָגַד), translated as "declaring," reveals that it refers to making known or announcing, rather than foreseeing an already settled future. The emphasis here is not on a timeless decree but on God’s active involvement in history. The passage does not say that God foreknows all events in an immutable sense, but that He proclaims what He intends to do and brings it about. #My Counsel Shall Stand The phrase "My counsel shall stand" (עֲצָתִי תָּקוּם) is better understood as a declaration of God's ability to accomplish what He purposes, rather than an assertion that all events are predetermined. This interpretation aligns with passages such as Jeremiah 18:7-10, where God explicitly states that He may alter His declared plans based on human response. God’s declarations in Isaiah 46 must be understood within the broader biblical framework where divine intentions can be conditional. For example, God declares judgment on Nineveh in Jonah 3, but when the people repent, He relents. If Isaiah 46 were teaching exhaustive foreknowledge of a fixed future, this kind of dynamic interaction would be impossible. The Polemical Purpose of Isaiah 46 A key flaw in deterministic readings of Isaiah 46 is that they ignore the chapter’s rhetorical and polemical function. The contrast is not between an omniscient God who possesses a settled future and an ignorant humanity; rather, the contrast is between Yahweh, who actively shapes history, and idols, which are passive and powerless. The thrust of the argument is that God can accomplish His plans in real time, whereas idols cannot act at all. Principles of Sound Exegesis in Interpreting Isaiah 46 In analyzing Isaiah 46, a sound exegetical approach includes: 1. Contextual Analysis – Recognizing that the passage addresses Israel’s idolatry and contrasts Yahweh’s sovereignty with the impotence of false gods. 2. Grammatical-Historical Method – Examining the original Hebrew words and their meanings in the historical and literary context. 3. Scripture Interprets Scripture – Understanding Isaiah 46 alongside other passages that show God’s intentions can change based on human response (e.g., Jeremiah 18:7-10, Jonah 3:10). 4. Authorial Intent – Identifying that Isaiah’s goal is to affirm God’s supremacy over idols, not to present a philosophical doctrine of exhaustive foreknowledge. 5. Rejection of Eisegesis – Avoiding reading theological presuppositions (such as determinism) into the text. Implications for Open Theism 1. God’s Foreknowledge is Dynamic, Not Deterministic – The passage does not teach exhaustive definite foreknowledge but rather God’s sovereign ability to bring about what He has purposed. 2. God Engages in Real-Time Decision-Making – The emphasis is not on a fixed script of history but on God’s ability to fulfill His word within an open and contingent future. 3. God’s Sovereignty is Relational, Not Causal – Open Theism maintains that God’s sovereignty is best understood as His capacity to work within creation dynamically, rather than as a blueprint that eliminates genuine human freedom. Conclusion Isaiah 46 does not support exhaustive divine determinism. Rather, it affirms that God is distinct from idols because He acts in history and accomplishes His purposes. A proper exegesis of the passage reveals that God is not merely foreseeing a settled future but is actively working to fulfill His plans in interaction with His people. This reading is fully consistent with Open Theism, which affirms God's sovereignty as relational, purposeful, and dynamically engaged with His creation. Thus, Isaiah 46, rather than refuting Open Theism, actually supports a view of God that is living, personal, and engaged with His people in real-time decisions.

Is anyone else watching this? Season one was awesome, and season two is looking just as good.

Snort isn't notifying me of new messages. I guess I have to keep looking,

Okay, I started using Ubuntu yesterday. I keep getting this "Authentication required" popup. It doesn't matter if I give a password and hit unlock or just hit cancel. It doesn't disrupt anything else. So at this point it is just annoying, How do I fix it?

Wow. You have a mighty nice company. It sure would be a shame if something happened to it. How about I give you protection for half your business? - said a gangster Sometimes the mask just comes right off.

I know this is the wrong place to tech-brag but I don't know who else to share it with. My coworkers won't care, or perhaps even understand. I got my new (refurbished) Thinkpad T495S and installed Ubuntu on it. Looking back it was so easy, but from before that, it created serious apprehension that I might just brick it. BTW what's the best Linux client for Nostr?

Okay. I want to buy a notebook running on Linux. Where's can I buy one for Bitcoin? (Agorist Preferred) I normally use a Chromebook at home, and Windows at work. I have a little experience with Linux, running in a sandbox on my Chromebook) So this will be a transition for me, so it should do most things, doc, Web, coding without being very expensive. Any ideas or recommendations?

Is anyone here into IOTA? I have a seed from a few years back. I can't access it on my phone anymore. Is there a Linux system I could use? Please advise. PS I just want to flip out into Bitcoin.

Please explain to me how a consistent Christian can swear fidelity to a godless organization like the State. No one can serve two masters.

HODL what's good. #bitcoin

Voting brought us to this.

This podcast came over my feed this morning. No, I haven't listened to it, but it generated in me a thought. -- Whole milk has nutrition designed to take a ~50 pound calf to a 500lb full grown cow in six months. Maybe this isn't what humans should be nurtured on.

Yes, that's my comment.

You guys know this is not the first time FEMA has failed the American people. Right?

Your vote doesn't change the outcome of the election. It changes you.

I think it's more persuasive to remind people about the things they know, rather than overcome what they think.

So during the last election, if you had voted differently, would it have changed the outcome? ... It changes you.

Sunset in Minnesota

# Why should people vote for your preferred political party. Despite marginal differences between political parties. 1. Which party will stop committing war crimes? 2. Which party will observe all of the moral rights that people exercise? 3. Which party will stop coercive confiscation of personal property? 4. Which party will allow competition for monopoly government services?