|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on Jan 6, 2007 13:56:34 GMT -5
As for the anthropomorphisms of God in the Bible, see this thread: openairoutreach.proboards52.com/index.cgi?board=doctrinaldiscussion&action=display&thread=1167415207This same discussion occurred between jackjackson and I. It got about as far as it could and then started to degenerate onto other things, but it is a useful thread. Pay attention to the piece I cited. Even if this was a true "changing of the mind" by God then you'd have a contradiction in your bible, Darc, because Mal. 3:6 says God does not change and Numbers 23:19 says, "God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?" As for whether God predestines/ordains the evil acts of men, yes, he does. By this I mean that they are predestined to happen just as all things are. Prov. 16:4 makes it clear that the wicked are made to fulfill their purpose as wicked people, i.e. sin and then destruction. Prov. 21:1 makes it clear that the king's heart is ultimately in God's control although it may seem to be in his own from his own perspective. Ah - this is a big one. When I ran into this it blew me away. See 2 Chronicles 18. Note the way in which God acts to accomplish his will in this case. He actually caused men to prophesy falsely by sending them an evil spirit. I'm aware that God does things like that in 2 Chron 18 Tyler but how does that change the Ex 32-33 passage? Or the Jonah account. Clearly God repented. The Word says so: Jonah3:10 "And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not." God even rebuked Jonah, who was mad at Him for not destroying them as He said he would. Jonah makes this statement to God: Jonah 4:2 "for I knew that thou art a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of the evil." So what do you do with the literal Word of God Tyler? The Exodus 32 passage is very clear and the Jonah passage is also clear are they not? You cannot ignore that truth. These both show God changing His mind and actions. And I'm not ignoring your passages either. What I'm doing is bringing all of God's Word in to the matter at hand. I don't pretend to understand all there is to know about GOD. I know that God is the same yesterday today and forever. I see what Mal 3:6 says, but, what does it say in context Tyler? And does this mean He does not change His mind and actions as shown in His Word (Ex 32; Jnh 3:10, 4:2)? Is this a contradiction? NO! It simply means that there is a far deeper understanding of who God is. Both passages are true and cannot be "explained away". The Numbers passage you've quoted is bigger and more definite than simply using it as a blanket statement about God never changing. The context is where Balak is wanting to use a prophet (Balaam) to curse Israel (the entire nation). God answers in a way that says He cannot go back on His blessing that He spoke to Israel. Balak was wanting Balaam to curse the nation of Israel as a whole. In the Ex 32 passage, I cited, God is wanting to destroy the whole nation of Israel as well. You see this when reading down further where Moses says so in vs11-12. We know God could not go against His promise to Israel as the Numbers passage shows. ***Basically the NU. passage is a man wanting God to curse the nation of Israel. And God refusing to because of His earlier promise. ***The EX. passage is God wanting to destroy the nation of Israel and man pleading with Him not to. And God repents from His anger and does not bring the disaster on them because of His earlier promise, due to man pleading with Him. The Jonah passage is God changing His mind and actions because of what the people of Nineveh DID (Jnh 3:10). This passage doesn't have anything to do with a before stated promise of God either, like the NU. and EX. passages. Here God simply changes His mind and actions due to man's repenting of their evil ways. Is that not also what happens when we repent and place faith in Jesus? Which one is wrong?
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Jan 6, 2007 14:00:55 GMT -5
DARC SAID: God answers in a way that says He cannot go back on His blessing that He spoke to Israel
TBXI, do you read in this statement what I do? Darc just conceded to your post lol
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Jan 6, 2007 14:17:11 GMT -5
This subject (immutability) is crucial. It deserves careful treatment. I am going to post in greater detail this evening.
Even if Darc's post is correct, he has still been forced to concede that God ordains the evil actions of men and even sends evil spirits to them at times, which puts a pretty big dent in his notion of libertarian free will - which is, as I mentioned before, the house of cards on which the rest of his theology stands.
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on Jan 6, 2007 14:23:30 GMT -5
You know, instead of taking little pop shots at the person (me) why not address the questions and the Word presented? Please. This is like dealing with two immature kids at a dinner table!
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Jan 6, 2007 14:26:30 GMT -5
You know, instead of taking little pop shots at the person (me) why not address the questions and the Word presented? Please. This is like dealing with two immature kids at a dinner table! Biblethumper's activity is not of my doing and I don't even agree with him on this, I think. No pop shots are being taken at you. I am studying this in greater detail so that I can respond decisively later. On the subject of free will, do you think Prov. 16:4 and 21:1 allow for it or no? Even if you found some other scripture with which to interpret these verses, how could they be molded into a free will understanding?
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Jan 6, 2007 16:02:04 GMT -5
Awe darc, can;t you lighten up and smile once in a while?
sheesh.
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on Jan 6, 2007 23:23:00 GMT -5
Another truth question/statement... ...why, if man does not have free will to choose, give him commands, exhortations and warnings? What good is it? If he has no free choice or free will then there is no option. And if there are no options then he might as well be pre-programed instead of told what to do. If man has no free will then God wasted a lot of His time and breath giving us these.
If man has no free will why did God tell Adam "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."?
and why tell man to repent if he has no free will?
why tell him to stop sinning?
why tell him to trust in Jesus?
The question is WHO does these things for him if he can't make the choice to do them?
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Jan 7, 2007 0:23:32 GMT -5
Another truth question/statement... ...why, if man does not have free will to choose, give him commands, exhortations and warnings? What good is it? If he has no free choice or free will then there is no option. And if there are no options then he might as well be pre-programed instead of told what to do. If man has no free will then God wasted a lot of His time and breath giving us these. If man has no free will why did God tell Adam "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."? and why tell man to repent if he has no free will? why tell him to stop sinning? why tell him to trust in Jesus? The question is WHO does these things for him if he can't make the choice to do them? This speculation will get you nowhere. I can easily turn it around on its head, proving its invalidity. We must first assume that God is omniscient. If you don't believe this then you have become an open theist, which is totally untenable. Why, if God knows what man will do, would He give them commands, exhortations and warnings? What good is it? If God knows what the creature will use his free will to do, then there is no option. And if there is no option then he might as well be pre-programmed instead of told what to do (after all, God made them all with free will, yet knew what they would use their free will to do, so it's no different). If man has free will yet God knows what their free will choices will be before He creates them, then God wasted a lot of time and breath telling them what to do. If man has free will, yet God knows the future exhaustively, why did He even bother giving the command not to eat from the tree? He knew what they would do anyway. and so on... This speculation, as shown, does nothing. You still have yet to reply to that which has been shown to be true from Proverbs 16:4 and 21:1. The man's will may appear free from his frame of reference, but in God's view, He is the one who ordains and controls all. We are not free with respect to God. God is the only being in the universe who truly has free will - the ability to choose whatever He wishes. Now, on to immutability. Others have covered this in its entirety better than I could at this point, so I will just cite them. The citation is from here: www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article.asp?id=241and later I will cite from Grudem's Systematic Theology. It would be best if the entire link I cited was read, but I will post the most relevant parts (however, the entire document is necessary to justify what I posted). C. Can God Change His Mind?
No treatment of the doctrine of immutability would be complete without a discussion of the problem posed by God's alleged "repentance." If God's plan is unalterable and he is immutable, in what sense can it be said that he "changed his mind"?
The word typically translated “change his mind” or “repent” is nacham. This word can be rendered in any one of four ways:
(1) “to experience emotional pain or weakness” or “to feel grief or sorrow” (cf. Gen. 6:6-7; Exod. 13:17; Judges 21:6,15; 1 Sam 15:11,35; Job 42:6; Jer. 31:19);
(2) “to be comforted” or “to comfort oneself” (cf. Gen. 24:67; 27:42; 37:35; 38:12; 2 Sam. 13:39; Pss. 77:3; 119:52; Isa. 1:24; Jer. 31:15; Ezek. 5:13; 14:22; 31:16; 32:31);
(3) “relenting from” or “repudiating” a course of action that is already underway (cf. Dt. 32:36 = Ps. 135:14; Judges 2:18; 2 Sam. 24:16 = 1 Chron. 21:15; Pss. 90:13; 106:45; Jer. 8:6; 20:16; 42:10); and
(4) “to retract” a statement or “to relent or change one’s mind concerning, to deviate from” a stated course of action (cf. Ex. 32:12,14; Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:29; Ps. 110:4; Isa. 57:6; Jer. 4:28; 15:6; 18:8,10; 26:3,13,19; Ezek. 24:14; Joel 2:13-14; Amos 7:3,6; Jonah 3:9-10; 4:2; Zech. 8:14).
This problem compels us to acknowledge the ambiguity of the English word “repent” and cautions us to be careful in ascribing it to God. Human beings repent of moral evil. We transgress God's law and acknowledge our sorrow for having done so and our determination to change how we behave. Obviously, whatever else God’s "repenting" might mean, it does not mean he has sinned and is changing his ways. If this were the case, he would hardly be worthy of the title God, still less would he be worthy of anyone's worship. This is why most English versions (except the KJV) use the word "relent" or "retract" or something similar.
Let’s look specifically at two passages, both of which use the word nacham.
"God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?" (Num. 23:19).
“So Samuel said to him, ‘The Lord has torn the kingdom of Israel from you today, and has given it to your neighbor who is better than you. And 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. 15:28-29).
Note well: in 1 Sam. 15:11,35 it says that God “repented” or “regretted” making Saul king. Yet in 1 Sam. 15:29 and Num. 23:19 it says that God cannot “repent” or “regret” an action he has taken. Scholars have generally said that there are four possible ways of responding to these texts:
· the statements in 1 Sam. 15:11,35, and 1 Sam. 15:29 (Num. 23:19) are contradictory;
· the statement in 1 Sam. 15:29 (Num. 23:19) must be interpreted in light of those in 1 Sam. 15:11,35;
· the statements in 1 Sam. 15:11,35 must be interpreted in light of that in 1 Sam. 15:29 (Num. 23:19);
· the statements in 1 Sam. 15:11,35 use the word nacham to mean “regret” or “feel emotional sorrow” whereas in 1 Sam. 15:29 it means “to deviate” from or “to change one’s mind” concerning a stated course of action; thus, in point of fact, there is no inconsistency between vv. 11,35 and v. 29.
Open theists contend that Num. 23:19 means that, whereas God generally can repent, in this particular case he chooses not to. However, were that true,
“does it not follow from this text [Num. 23:19] that, while it is generally true that God can lie, in this particular case he chooses not to? That is, the parallelism of lying and repenting indicates that just as God cannot lie, he cannot repent. The question becomes, then, can God ever lie?” (God’s Lesser Glory, 87).
Assuming that all would answer the latter question, No (cf. 2 Tim. 2:13; Titus 1:2; Heb. 6:18), it would appear that
“the parallel relation of God’s repentance with lying would lead one to conclude that this passage is teaching more than simply that in this particular historical situation God chooses not to lie or repent. Rather, just as God can never lie, so He can never repent” (87).
One should also take note of the contrast made between God and man. God is said not to be like humans, who both lie and repent:
“Does not the force of this claim evaporate the instant one reads it to say, in this particular situation God is not like a man and so does not repent? Do men (i.e., human beings) always repent of what they say they will do? If so, the contrast can be maintained. But if human beings sometimes carry out what they say and sometimes repent and do otherwise, and if God, likewise sometimes carries out what he says and sometimes repents and does otherwise, then how is God different from humans? The only way the contrast works is if God, unlike men, never repents. It is generally true, not merely situationally true, that God does not repent” (88).
This applies as well to the texts in 1 Sam. 15. In other words, “to say that God sometimes repents (e.g., 1 Sam. 15:11,35) and sometimes doesn’t (1 Sam. 15:29) would be to argue that he sometimes lies and, in the same sense as with ‘repent,’ sometimes doesn’t. But the truth is that God never lies, and so this text requires also that he never repents” (Ware, 88).
Two additional observations are in order.
First, many have appealed to a common figure of speech known as anthropopatheia or anthropopathism (from the Greek anthropos, "man," plus pathos, "affection, feeling"). Thus, an anthropopathism is a figure of speech wherein certain human passions, feelings, mental activities, and so on are predicated of God. This, of course, is related to the more well-known figure of speech called anthropomorphism (again, from the Greek for "man" plus morphe, "form"), in which there are ascribed to God human body parts (e.g., eyes, mouth, nostrils, hands). Bruce Ware defines anthropomorphism as follows:
“A given ascription to God may rightly be understood as anthropomorphic when Scripture clearly presents God as transcending the very human or finite features it elsewhere attributes to him” (“An Evangelical Reformulation of the Doctrine of the Immutability of God,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 29, no. 4 [1986], 442).
Thus, God is figuratively portrayed as “relenting” from a course of action or “changing his mind” but in literal fact does not. Clark Pinnock believes that classical theists adopt this approach to the problem because of an extra-biblical presupposition concerning the nature of God:
"The criterion employed here is simply the Greek ideal of perfection. The meaning of Scripture is not then determined from within Scripture, but on the basis of a higher standard, the requirements of adopted philosophical assumptions" (40).
However, contrary to Pinnock’s assertion, most evangelicals appeal to anthropopathism because of what they believe Scripture explicitly teaches concerning the omniscience and immutability of God. It is the "analogy of faith," not Greek philosophical presuppositions, which governs their treatment of such problem texts. Passages such as Numbers 23:19 and the others cited earlier are unequivocal: God is not a man. Therefore he does not lie. He does not change his mind the way people do. He does not promise and then fail to fulfill. Those who appeal to anthropopathism insist that we are justified in interpreting the unclear in the light of the clear and utilizing a figure of speech generally acknowledged as entirely legitimate.
Second, and even more important, we must recognize the difference between unconditional divine decrees and conditional divine announcements (or warnings). The former will occur irrespective of other factors. The latter may occur, dependent on the response of the person or persons to whom they apply. Occasionally something explicit in the context will indicate which of the two is in view. Most often, however, statements of divine intent are ambiguous. That is to say, one must determine from other data whether the declaration or determination of God is unconditional or conditional. For example, what we find in the case of Jonah and the Ninevites is most likely not an unqualifed and unconditional declaration of purpose. Consider carefully the nature of this passage from Jeremiah (18:5-12):
"Then the word of the LORD came to me: 'O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?' declares the LORD. 'Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it. Now therefore say to the people of Judah and those living in Jerusalem, This is what the LORD says: Look! I am preparing a disaster for you and devising a plan against you. So turn from your evil ways, each one of you, and reform your ways and your actions. But they will reply, 'It's no use. We will continue with our own plans; each of us will follow the stubbornness of his evil heart.'"
That God declared his intention to destroy Nineveh, only to withhold his hand when they repented, is thus no threat to the doctrine of immutability. On the contrary, had God destroyed Nineveh notwithstanding its repentance, he would have shown himself mutable. Shedd explains:
"If God had treated the Ninevites after their repentance, as he had threatened to treat them before their repentance, this would have proved him to be mutable. It would have showed him to be at one time displeased with impenitence, and at another with penitence. Charnock . . . remarks that 'the unchangeableness of God, when considered in relation to the exercise of his attributes in the government of the world, consists not in always acting in the same manner, however cases and circumstances may alter; but in always doing what is right, and in adapting his treatment of his intelligent creatures to the variation of their actions and characters [emphasis mine]. When the devils, now fallen, stood as glorious angels, they were the objects of God's love, necessarily; when they fell, they were the objects of God's hatred, because impure. The same reason which made him love them while they were pure, made him hate them when they were criminal.' It is one thing for God to will a change in created things external to himself and another thing for him to change in his own nature and character" (I:352-53).
All this is simply to say that God's immutability requires him to treat the wicked differently from the righteous. When the wicked repent, his treatment of them must change. Therefore, according to Strong, God's immutability "is not that of the stone, that has no internal experience, but rather that of the column of mercury, that rises and falls with every change in the temperature of the surrounding atmosphere" (258).
Thus we see that it is a principle of God's immutable being (as revealed by him in Scripture) that he punishes the wicked and recalcitrant but blesses and forgives the righteous and repentant. If God were to reveal himself as such (as, in fact, he has done), only to punish the repentant and bless the recalcitrant, this would constitute real change and thus destroy immutability. God's declaration of intent to punish the Ninevites because of their sinful behavior and wickedness is based on the assumption that they are and will remain wicked. However, if and when they repent (as they did), to punish them notwithstanding would constitute a change, indeed reversal, in God's will and word, to the effect that he now, as over against the past, punishes rather than blesses the repentant.
Examples of an unconditional decree would be Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:29; Psalm 110:4; Jeremiah 4:28; Ezek. 24:14; Zech. 8:14. Examples of conditional announcements or warnings would be Exodus 32:12,14; Amos 7:3,6; Jeremiah 15:6; 18:8,10; 26:3,13,19; Joel 2:13-14; Jonah 3:9-10; 4:2. From Grudem's Systematic Theology, p. 163: 2. Unchangeableness. We can define the unchangeableness of God as follows - God is unchanging in his being, perfections, purposes, and promises, yet God does act and feel emotions, and he acts and feels differently in response to different situations. This attribute of God is also called God's immutability. a. Evidence in Scripture In Psalm 102 we find a contrast between things that we may think to be permanent such as the earth or the heavens, on the one hand, and God, on the other hand. The psalmist says: Of old you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you endure; they will all wear out like a garment. You change them like raiment, and they pass away; but you are the same, and your years have no end. (Ps. 102:25-27) God existed before the heavens and earth were made, and he will exist long after they have been destroyed. God causes the universe to change, but in contrast to this change he is "the same." Referring to his own qualities of patience, long-suffering, and mercy, God says, "For I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed" (Mal. 3:6). Here God uses a general statement of his unchangeableness to refer to some specific ways in which he does not change. James reminds his readers that all good gifts come ultimately from God "with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change" (James 1:17). His argument is that since good gifts have always come from God, we can be confident that only good gifts will come from him in the future, because his character never changes in the slightest degree. The definition given above specifies that God is unchanging - not in every way that we might imagine, but only in ways that Scripture itself affirms. The Scripture passages already cited refer either to God's own being or to some attribute of his character. From these we can conclude that God is unchanging, at least with respect to his "being," and with respect to his "perfections" (that is, his attributes or the various aspects of his character). The great Dutch theologian Herman BAvinck notes that the fact that God is unchanging in his being is of the utmost importance for maintaining the Creator/creature distinction, and for our worship of God: The doctrine of God's immutability of is of the highest significance for religion. The contrast between being and becoming marks the difference between the Creator and the creature. Every creature is continually becoming. It is changeable, constantly striving, seeks rest and satisfaction, and finds this rest in God, in him alone, for only he is pure being and no becoming. Hence, in Scripture God is often called the Rock... The definition given above also affirms God's unchangeableness or immutability with respect to his purposes. "The counsel of the LORD stands for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations" (Ps. 33:11). This general statement about God's counsel is supported by several specific verses that talk about individual plans or purposes of God that he has had for all eternity (Matt. 13:35; 25:34; Eph. 1:4, 11; 3:9, 11; 2 Tim. 2:19; 1 Peter 1:20; Rev. 13:8). Once God has determined that he will assuredly bring something about, his purpose is unchanging, and it will be achieved. In fact, God claims through Isaiash that no one else is like him in this regard: 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" ... I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass; I have purposed, and I will do it. (Isa. 46:9-11) Furthermore, God is unchanging in his promises. Once he has promised something, he will not be unfaithful to that promise: "God is not a man, that he should lie, or 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 fulfill it?" (Num. 23:19; cf. 1 Sam. 15:29). b. Does God Sometimes Change His Mind? Yet when we talk about God being unchanging in his purposes, we may wonder about places in Scripture where God said he would judge his people and then because of prayer or the people's repentance (or both) God relented and did not bring judgment as he had said he would. Examples of such withdrawing from threatened judgment include the successful intervention of Moses in prayer to prevent the destruction of the people of Israel (Ex. 32:9-14), the adding of another fifteen years to the life of Hezekiah (Isa. 38:1-6), or the failure to bring promised judgment upon Nineveh when the people repented (Jonah 3:4,10). Are these not cases where God's purposes in fact did change? Then there are other passages where God is said to be sorry that he had carried out some previous action. One thinks of God being sorry that he had made man upon the earth (Gen. 6:6), or sorry that he had made Saul king (1 Sam. 15:10). Did not God's purposes change in these cases? These instances should all be understood as true expressions of God's present attitude or intention with respect to the situation as it exists at that moment. If the situation changes, then of course God's attitude or expression of intention will also change. This is just saying that God responds differently to different situations. The example of Jonah preaching to Nineveh is helpful here. God sees the wickedness of Nineveh and sends Jonah to proclaim, "Yet forty days, and Nineven shall be overthrown!" (Jonah 3:4). The possibility that God would withhold judgment if the people repented is not explicitly mentioned in Jonah's proclamation as recorded in Scripture, but it is of course implicit in that warning: the purpose for proclaiming a warning is to bring about repentance. Once the people repented, the situation was different, and God responded differently to that changed situation: "When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil way, God repented of the evil which he had said he would do to them; and he did not do it" (Jonah 3:10). The situations with hezekiah and with the intercession of Moses are similar: God had said that he would send judgment, and that was a true declaration, provided that the situation remained the same. But then the situation changed: someone started to pray earnestly (Moses in one case and Hezekiah in the other). Here prayer itself was part of the new situation and was in fact what changed the situation. God responded to that changed situation by answering the prayer and withholding judgment. In the cases of God being sorry that he had made man, or that he had made Saul king, these too can be understood as expressions of God's present displeasure toward the sinfulness of man. In neither case is the language strong enough to require us to think that if God could start again and act differently, he would in fact not create man or not make Saul king. It can instead imply that God's previous action led to events that, in the short term, caused him sorrow, but that nonetheless in the long term would ultimately achieve his good purposes. This is somewhat analogous to a human father who allows his child to embark on a course he knows will bring much sorrow, both to the parent and to the child, but who allows it nonetheless, because he knows that greater long-term good will come from it. ----- One thing I would like to add to this is that since God knows everything about the future, his warnings can be understood as a means to an end - for example, the warning to Nineveh via Jonah.
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on Jan 7, 2007 11:12:37 GMT -5
You have one MAJOR hurdle that you have to climb over and that is when the Word of God says He repented you can either believe the Word of God or do as this person has done and flush that truth to begin building his own philosophy.
This above quote is taken right off the very beginning of your post Tyler. I will not climb into this wagon of human understanding. God's Word says God repented and so therefore I believe Him.
I may read the rest of this philosophy later, but you have a MAJOR problem here. And you have the nerve to try and pin a work's salvation on me? This is nothing more than pushing God's word aside for a human understanding to apply it to a larger "understanding". It does not come from God when you first push what God said to the side.
How can you justify this? HOW?
No treatment of the doctrine of immutability would be complete without a discussion of the problem posed by God's alleged "repentance."
This is the basis of this man's argument? He questions the literal Word of God when IT says God repented? This is of the most shaky ground to be standing on. Whether, at this point I can do anything with the Proverb verses or not is irrelevant in light of what this man is attempting to do.
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Jan 7, 2007 13:49:44 GMT -5
If you read the rest of the piece it will make what I am saying very clear. You run into contradictions in Scripture if you say that God actually changed his mind. To say this degrades God's omniscience and eternality.
I can just as easily blow off your arguments, Darc, refer to them as "philosophy" in a negative way, and say that you are "flushing" Mal. 3:6 and Numbers 23:19 for a "human understanding", but that does not get to the issue. It is nothing more than poisoning the well without actually interacting with the arguments offered.
Numbers 23:19 says, 19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? An analogy is drawn, right here in this verse, which compares the idea of God lying to the idea of God changing his mind (both do not happen). If you are going to try to say that this statement is not general, but only specific to particular situations such as the immediate context of Numbers 23:19, then you are also saying it is possible for God to lie in certain situations, which is heresy.
Knowing this, you have to do more than simply look at other verses that say God repented and blow the whole thing off. If you do nothing more than take that shallow view of the text, then you are left with contradictions which obviously aren't there. In order to get sensible doctrine out of all this, more work needs to be done. I have done my part. Now you have to do yours.
And the points I made from Prov. 16:4 and 21:1 still stand. They throw a wrench into the entire Arminian/Pelagian soteriology.
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on Jan 7, 2007 23:35:21 GMT -5
If you read the rest of the piece it will make what I am saying very clear. You run into contradictions in Scripture if you say that God actually changed his mind. To say this degrades God's omniscience and eternality. You see I don't run into contradictions Tyler. When there seems to be something that doesn't quite make sense I will take the time to study God's Word, asking Him to show me His truth and give me understanding with correct revelation. It's me, His Spirit and His Word. This man is ignoring God's Word and I don't buy that, I don't like it. How can you find it ok to simply write off God when He said He repented, changed His mind and didn't bring the disators on them as He said He was going to? My argument is the Word and what it clearly says. It's not poisoning the well. It's called calling it what it is. The man makes a statement, basically, that he doubts God when He clearly says: Jonah3:10 "And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not." The man's response to this is: No treatment of the doctrine of immutability would be complete without a discussion of the problem posed by God's alleged "repentance."All I will say is what part of this passage does he believe? More importantly is God wrong for putting the Jonah account in the Bible. Tyler, it clearly says "God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not". Repent means to change your mind and behavior. End of story. I am looking at the other Proverbs verses. Tyler you need to understand, it's not me and my "understanding" rather it is what God's Word plainly says that I am defending. The onus is as much on you as it is on me to make this set of Scriptures mesh. So don't put it off on me as if I'm wrong. The Word is clear, God changed his mind. You have to deal with that Truth.
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Jan 7, 2007 23:36:28 GMT -5
Yes, you are poisoning the well if you make all kinds of pejorative, negative remarks about my post being "philosophy" when you never read it. Darc, you ignored the main thrust of my post. There is a problem with you reading that verse literally. Numbers 23:19 says, 19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? An analogy is drawn, right here in this verse, which compares the idea of God lying to the idea of God changing his mind (both do not happen). If you are going to try to say that this statement is not general, but only specific to particular situations such as the immediate context of Numbers 23:19, then you are also saying it is possible for God to lie in certain situations, which is heresy.
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on Jan 7, 2007 23:51:32 GMT -5
Yes, you are poisoning the well if you make all kinds of pejorative, negative remarks about my post being "philosophy" when you never read it. Darc, you ignored the main thrust of my post. There is a problem with you reading that verse literally. Numbers 23:19 says, 19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? An analogy is drawn, right here in this verse, which compares the idea of God lying to the idea of God changing his mind (both do not happen). If you are going to try to say that this statement is not general, but only specific to particular situations such as the immediate context of Numbers 23:19, then you are also saying it is possible for God to lie in certain situations, which is heresy. Whatever! yes you are, no I'm not, yes you are, no..... You're not hearing me Tyler. You can try and thrust all the verses you want on me but that won't change the truth of Jonah 3:10. If you can't accept that then I don't know what else to say. I'm trying to reason with you. How can you ignore this verse?
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Jan 7, 2007 23:54:03 GMT -5
Darc, I did not ignore it. I took both it and the verse it appears to have a problem with into account. That is what the material I posted talks about, but you seem to think it's evil or something so you won't even read it. On the other hand, you are not allowing your view of Jonah 3:10 and other similar verses to be interpreted through Numbers 23:19 and 1 Sam. 15:29 and Mal. 3:6 and so on. This is similar to when we discuss eternal security. I appeal to the Calvinistic verses such as Romans 8 and 9, just to name a few. You say that your understanding is right anyway (and it is indeed your understanding, not objective truth - unless you attempt to take everything into account), regardless of what they say. That is not acceptable. Here is a piece of that quote that is particularly relevant. Open theists contend that Num. 23:19 means that, whereas God generally can repent, in this particular case he chooses not to. However, were that true,
“does it not follow from this text [Num. 23:19] that, while it is generally true that God can lie, in this particular case he chooses not to? That is, the parallelism of lying and repenting indicates that just as God cannot lie, he cannot repent. The question becomes, then, can God ever lie?” (God’s Lesser Glory, 87).
Assuming that all would answer the latter question, No (cf. 2 Tim. 2:13; Titus 1:2; Heb. 6:18), it would appear that
“the parallel relation of God’s repentance with lying would lead one to conclude that this passage is teaching more than simply that in this particular historical situation God chooses not to lie or repent. Rather, just as God can never lie, so He can never repent” (87).
One should also take note of the contrast made between God and man. God is said not to be like humans, who both lie and repent:
“Does not the force of this claim evaporate the instant one reads it to say, in this particular situation God is not like a man and so does not repent? Do men (i.e., human beings) always repent of what they say they will do? If so, the contrast can be maintained. But if human beings sometimes carry out what they say and sometimes repent and do otherwise, and if God, likewise sometimes carries out what he says and sometimes repents and does otherwise, then how is God different from humans? The only way the contrast works is if God, unlike men, never repents. It is generally true, not merely situationally true, that God does not repent” (88).
This applies as well to the texts in 1 Sam. 15. In other words, “to say that God sometimes repents (e.g., 1 Sam. 15:11,35) and sometimes doesn’t (1 Sam. 15:29) would be to argue that he sometimes lies and, in the same sense as with ‘repent,’ sometimes doesn’t. But the truth is that God never lies, and so this text requires also that he never repents” (Ware, 88).
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on Jan 8, 2007 0:22:37 GMT -5
The onus is on you to try and make Jonah 3:10 be interpreted by Numbers 23:19 and 1 Sam. 15:29 and Mal. 3:6, etc..
The Word is clear and until you can do something more than make the statement that it takes some sort of interpretation to understand clear KJV Bible verse then I will not make another comment until I've studied it and you do the same. It's NOT the issue of what Jonah says, it's clear. How can you make it any more clearer is what I want to know?
The difference here is I desire to go back to the Word and have the Spirit of God show me what and how. You on the other hand are relying on another man's interpretation, buying into it hook, line and sinker.
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Jan 8, 2007 0:25:45 GMT -5
Already finished that.
OK, Darc. I have already presented my beliefs here and how I think it all fits together. If you read what I posted then you will see why my beliefs are the way they are. The accusation that I am merely relying on man is unjustified and false.
BTW - the KJV is not really that simple and easy to understand. "Repent" is translated relent or with another similar word in Jonah 3:10 and similar verses.
I will await your response. Let me know how Numbers 23:19 and 1 Sam. 15:29 allow your interpretation of Jonah 3:10 to stand after you have considered the arguments about the parallelization between God not lying and God also not repenting, etc.
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on Jan 8, 2007 10:17:03 GMT -5
Already finished that. OK, Darc. I have already presented my beliefs here and how I think it all fits together. If you read what I posted then you will see why my beliefs are the way they are. The accusation that I am merely relying on man is unjustified and false. Tyler, good morning. I understand your dilema and I know it must be difficult. I am going to do something for you in regard to the Jonah passage. When you study the Bible you must come at it humbly, asking God to show you and as you do this, apply the "Who, what, where, when, how and why" questions to it, in it's context, as a whole. First of all, God didn't lie in this passage. He only speaks truth. Again, you must apply the study approach to this passage as I just laid out. Let's look at it in it's context so we can understand the usage of the word. "Jonah 3 1And the word of the LORD came unto Jonah the second time, saying, 2Arise, go unto Nineveh, that great city, and preach unto it the preaching that I bid thee. 3So Jonah arose, and went unto Nineveh, according to the word of the LORD. Now Nineveh was an exceeding great city of three days' journey. 4And Jonah began to enter into the city a day's journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown. (destroyed) 5So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them. 6For word came unto the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, and he laid his robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. 7And he caused it to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water: 8But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands. 9Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not? 10And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not." (the added color, emphasis and parenthesis are mine) We know Jonah was a prophet of God sent by God to give the Ninevites a message. The message was clear. "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown". But why did God speak this through Jonah? Verse 2 of chapter 1 tells us. 1:2 "Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry against it; for their wickedness is come up before me." God was giving the city of Nineveh the message 'turn from your wickedness or perish'. Jonah spoke "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown" to the people. God was going to destroy them according to what He spoke through Jonah. Do you think God just throws out idle threats like this but wouldn't follow through? No. Think about that there are many examples of Him doing this, giving warning and still having to follow through with judgment. He is constantly telling the people of this world to repent or perish, through laborers like myself and others. If the people don't heed the warning then God will have to bring judgment on them, sending them to hell. So when God speaks this message through Jonah to the people it was a very serious and real possibility that He would destroy Nineveh and it's people, because of their wickedness, if they didn't turn from it. So Jonah gives the message, a very somber message. One that gets the people's attention and the Word says they turned away from their wickedness and sin. The whole city! The King upon doing so says: Jnh3:9 "Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not?" He just knew that he must turn from his wickedness, he feared God, believing the message even as simple as it was he believed. God then upon seeing this has compassion on them and the Word says: Jnh3:10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not. He was serious, that if they didn't turn He was going to judge and destroy them. Now I ask you, why would anyone need to apply anything to this passage when it is so very clear? God saw their wickedness. God threatened them with destruction. They repented and obeyed Him. He saw this. He turned away from His anger and threat choosing not to do what He said he would. Is God so big that if He so chooses to change His mind He can? Who are we to question Him when He does this? I'm thankful He does every time someone repents and places trust in Jesus. If not then the wrath of God would not be able to be lifted if He didn't change His mind. Think about this. As a sinner that person has the wrath of God on them but upon repentance of sin and faith in Jesus that wrath is lifted away. Regardless of views, Calvinism or Arminiaism. God had to change His mind and future actions there doesn't He? His wrath can no longer be there and that is a state of which exists upon the sinner but that changes. It's not that we change, even though we do, but that God does. For if that weren't the case then we would have no hope. None.
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on Jan 8, 2007 10:32:08 GMT -5
You must also ask yourself did God say these?
Jnh3:4,9-10 ...4"Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.
9Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not?
10And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not." and if He did, but Nineveh was spared then how was it spared? Or did God lie?
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Jan 8, 2007 12:03:54 GMT -5
Already finished that. OK, Darc. I have already presented my beliefs here and how I think it all fits together. If you read what I posted then you will see why my beliefs are the way they are. The accusation that I am merely relying on man is unjustified and false. BTW - the KJV is not really that simple and easy to understand. "Repent" is translated relent or with another similar word in Jonah 3:10 and similar verses. I will await your response. Let me know how Numbers 23:19 and 1 Sam. 15:29 allow your interpretation of Jonah 3:10 to stand after you have considered the arguments about the parallelization between God not lying and God also not repenting, etc. Tyler, darc is not here to learn or be challeneged in his view; his sole desire (ask him) is that YOU would "repent of your doctrines of devils and come to the full Truth of Scripture." Ask him. That should let you decide on whether or not to keep going with this guy, because I guarantee he'll never stop until YOU relent; that's the only reason he's debating you and the only reason he debates anyone. Bank on it.
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Jan 8, 2007 12:58:10 GMT -5
Darc, that exposition is nice and all but you still haven't even considered the verses or arguments I cited. Just because you put on this air like you're the only one here who is seeking God's truth doesn't make everything you say automatically correct.
I never said that God was lying. If you read the article I posted and the arguments made therein there is no way you could come to that conclusion. In fact, the fact that God does not lie is used therein to make the point.
Dan, I am beginning to understand that. I will probably not have reason to post further in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on Jan 8, 2007 15:15:48 GMT -5
Darc, that exposition is nice and all but you still haven't even considered the verses or arguments I cited. Just because you put on this air like you're the only one here who is seeking God's truth doesn't make everything you say automatically correct. I never said that God was lying. If you read the article I posted and the arguments made therein there is no way you could come to that conclusion. In fact, the fact that God does not lie is used therein to make the point. Dan, I am beginning to understand that. I will probably not have reason to post further in this thread. Tyler, I do not need to consider those other scriptures to understand Jonah and how God dealt with that situation. AND I didn't say anything like I'm the only one here seeking truth NOR do I put on such an air. That is simply like a straw-man attack to get the focus off the issue at hand. I make statements to the effect that I don't consider myself to know everything there is to know about God and His truths, that I am learning and growing in knowledge of Him. That is who I am. End of the story. AND I don't think everything I say is automatically correct either. I make very straight forward comments regarding what I literally read in the Word. I take a very Spirit led/LITERAL approach to God's Word, NOT an intellectual/educated one. The Word is very full and plain to understand. I didn't say you said God was lying. Even though it's truly not about who wins BUT that the truth is establishes that matters, if you back out of this I will consider that as though you lost the debate/discussion based on the fact that you started this and will have quit for no other reason than you are unable to make sense of it. What I'm attempting to do here Tyler is to get you to see what these passages literally say and that they can stand on their own without any other Word to "interpret" them. You say that you have, but, you haven't shown me how those other verses "fit" with this Jonah passage. The question I have for you along this line is; why is it up to me to do that? You first offered the Numbers verses... I countered with the Jonah passage and a couple others... You, now, facing this hard truth, have pushed it off on me to make Jonah fit with Numbers.. The question is that; I offered contrary Biblical evidence to your position, so why is that now my responsibility? It's squarely in your court. A personal observation: You seem to make person attacks on me, ie., making accusatory and inflammatory statements that have nothing to do with the Biblical truth we are discussing. I am asking you to keep it focused on the discussion and stop this apparent diversionary tactic.
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on Jan 8, 2007 16:48:03 GMT -5
I have read, pondered and studied the Numbers 23:19 verse in context. In context again, this is where Balak has got Israel camped close to him and he is afraid for his life and of what they might do to his country so he summons Balaam to put a curse on Israel.
Num 23:17-26 "And when he came to him, behold, he stood by his burnt offering, and the princes of Moab with him. And Balak said unto him, What hath the LORD spoken?
18And he took up his parable, and said, Rise up, Balak, and hear; hearken unto me, thou son of Zippor:
19God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
20Behold, I have received commandment to bless: and he hath blessed; and I cannot reverse it.
21He hath not beheld iniquity in Jacob, neither hath he seen perverseness in Israel: the LORD his God is with him, and the shout of a king is among them.
22God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.
23Surely there is no enchantment against Jacob, neither is there any divination against Israel: according to this time it shall be said of Jacob and of Israel, What hath God wrought!
24Behold, the people shall rise up as a great lion, and lift up himself as a young lion: he shall not lie down until he eat of the prey, and drink the blood of the slain.
25And Balak said unto Balaam, Neither curse them at all, nor bless them at all.
26But Balaam answered and said unto Balak, Told not I thee, saying, All that the LORD speaketh, that I must do?"
***Now clearly this is God dealing with His chosen people. The ones that are carrying the promise, the Law and so on with them. This is dramatically different than dealing with the people of Nineveh.
I have to ask questions Tyler, because it's something I'm not clear about:
Isn't this a very specific situation where God made and gave the covenant and promises to Jacob a few generations prior to these events in Numbers?
And isn't this the nation that the Messiah would come from?
Did God say He would curse them in this passage?
Was God establishing Himself with Balak when He said what He said here? 19God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
In other words God NEVER does anything wrong to repent of. He NEVER lies and does He speak and not act?
It seems God is establishing Himself to Balak.
My biggest question, Tyler, is here God has NOT said something that He has changed His mind on, so how CAN you apply this to an example that isn't remotely the same, where He definitely has? But keep in mind God was not wrong in what He told the people of Nineveh. Still though that doesn't mean that He couldn't change His mind if He wanted to and because of their repentance. You have to keep in mind that God did NOTHING wrong that He would have to repent of. It's not a matter of that, simply that He did.
These are a few truths we know about God... **Sin damns a soul to hell, but, more importantly sin is what causes God to act that way. IF there was no sin in the world God wouldn't have to judge. But it is what cause Him to do that.
**We know God has always said we must REPENT of SIN in order to stop His judgment and anger. We must seek His mercy.
**AND when someone repents of their sin and serves God He stops or puts an end to His wrath and the judgment that was upon them.
So, I see no problem between the two passages fitting together. God says He never lies, AMEN. He says He's not man where He needs to repent (in other words He does do anything or say anything wrong that He needs to repent of). AMEN And when He speaks He acts or follows through. AMEN
In the Jonah passage: He never lied. AMEN He didn't say anything that He needed to repent of. AMEN He said He was going to destroy them. But He warned them. And in their paying heed to His warning changed His mind and didn't do what He said He was going to do.
NOW IF God HAD NOT warned them there would be a major problem, but, in light of the fact the Sovereign Lord gave them warning before hand puts everything in line.
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Jan 8, 2007 22:46:19 GMT -5
How so?
Yes, but the statement " 19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?" is comparing God's ability to change his mind, i.e. repent, to His ability to lie. They are both nonexistent.
What do you mean by "establishing Himself"? I believe God was indeed establishing something true about himself, that is, that just as He does not lie, He also does not change His mind i.e. repent.
Because either one is literal or the other is literal. I believe this one is literal (Num. 23:19) because it compares God's changing his mind (it doesn't happen) to God's lying (it doesn't happen). In order for you to say that God literally changes His mind in certain situations, then you have to also say that God lies in certain situations which is blasphemy.
I agree, God did nothing wrong that he could repent of. "Repent" is not the best word for this, the KJV is lacking here. It is speaking of changing one's mind. And God, for the aforementioned reasons, does not change His mind.
It seems like you're confusing the meaning of repentance here. You seemed to say earlier that the meaning of repentance was a changing of the mind. Now you seem to be saying that the meaning of repentance in Num. 23:19 is repentance from sin. Correct me if I misunderstand you here. Jonah 3:10 in the Amplified, says, "And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God revoked His [sentence of] evil that He had said that He would do to them and He did not do it [for He was comforted and eased concerning them]." (bracketed parts are in that version.) The NIV says, " 10 When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he had compassion and did not bring upon them the destruction he had threatened." "Repent" is a flawed translation in the KJV anyway (in this area). Both of these versions' more sensible translations make sense out of the whole thing without even causing a problem. God did not bring upon them the destruction he had threatened. This matches up perfectly with the biblical doctrine of immutability.
I believe there are some points in the material I posted that you have not acknowledged. I am not sure if you have read it yet.
I have made sense out of it, no problem. If I don't respond after this post, though, it will be because to do so would be to repeat myself and would therefore be a waste of time. You may claim victory if you like. I will leave that to those who read this to decide.
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on Jan 9, 2007 6:18:00 GMT -5
In that, one He has made promises and covenants with and the other He has'nt.
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on Jan 9, 2007 6:23:55 GMT -5
Tyler, I fail to see where there is a comparison happening here. It's that God is simply stating facts about who He is to Balak. You keep alluding to a comparison. Why? Please no quip little short answer, I'm asking a serious question.
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on Jan 9, 2007 6:28:06 GMT -5
Why is it that both are not literal? You have some work to do here to make that point.
There's that comparison thing again. Why?
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on Jan 9, 2007 6:49:58 GMT -5
No, no I'm not confusing anything. Repantance in some cases is merely changing one's mind and in others, changing the mind and actions are needed.
OK, let's say "repent" is flawed word. I'll give you that one, but, what do you do with the repenting "language"?
What I mean is when God said this: "he had compassion and did not bring upon them the destruction he had threatened."
or this: "God revoked His [sentence of] evil that He had said that He would do to them and He did not do it " you're saying it does not mean what He says?
Are you saying to me that this is saying God didn't change His mind? Because this clearly says God "threatened to do something or said He was going to do something AND THEN He did it NOT or didn't do it.
If someone says they're going to do something but then doesn't do it they have either a) lied or b) changed their mind. Which is it? It can't be both.
|
|
|
Post by tonyholland on Jan 9, 2007 9:21:37 GMT -5
Sorry to but in.....but this passage in Jonah is really interesting.
Darc and I totally disagree on our theology, but I do think that we have to be honest enough to consider scripture that conflicts with our belief system.
The passage in Jonah you guys are talking about does seem to plainly say that God changed his mind regarding the people of Ninevah. I agree that using the word repent can cause some confusion, but only because of the way that we understand it.
God issued a warning and the people responded. Therfore God responded in kind. There is nothing written in that passage that would indicated that God knew that they would change as there was when Abraham tried to convince God not to destroy Sodom and Gommorah (it was clear that God knew that no one was going to repent there)
From the Calvanists persepctive (which is, for the most part, where I am) how do you read this scripture? It looks to me that it is just exactly what it says.
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on Jan 9, 2007 19:40:33 GMT -5
Tony, For a change, I thank you for your support of the Truth.
Tyler, I am going to put a few more scriptures out here which show God does in fact change His mind and actions and it is very apparent from these as well as the Jonah passage that God does this upon seeing that man changed. In other words His promises and Words He speaks are conditional upon either man's obedience or disobedience. The fact of the matter is that this is a truth that runs all throughout the Word of God.
1 Samuel 2:30 "Therefore the LORD, the God of Israel, declares: 'I promised that your house and your father's house would minister before me forever.' But now the LORD declares: 'Far be it from me! Those who honor me I will honor, but those who despise me will be disdained." (NIV)
Jer 18:8 "and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned." (NIV)
Jer 18:10 "and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it." (NIV)
Ezek 33:13 "When I shall say to the righteous, that he shall surely live; if he trust to his own righteousness, and commit iniquity, all his righteousnesses shall not be remembered; but for his iniquity that he hath committed, he shall die for it." (KJV)
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Jan 9, 2007 20:25:55 GMT -5
Darc: Have you read what I posted from Grudem and Storms? Please let me know. We are both working here to find out what the truth is, and I am not even sure if you have read all that I've posted before continuing. There seems to be a double standard in operation on your end, in that you quickly jump to take Jonah 3:10 literally from a human point of view while you disregard my use of Numbers 23:19 and try to localize the impact of that verse - same with Mal. 3:6 and 1 Sam. 15:29. On the other hand I have tried to bring them both into one sound understanding. I do not see how you can so quickly discard my whole argument if you have actually read and understood what I posted. If God's emotions were to change in the same way as a human's, then that means you could change God's emotions whenever you wanted to by doing evil/sinful things. Do you think you have the power to do this? Are God's moods at your whim, in your control? How is He still sovereign if this is true? Or do you have to change the definition of sovereign? This is the rational conclusion that must be drawn if what you are saying is correct, and it eats away at the doctrine of divine sovereignty (which you claim to believe) and eternality (which I don't know if you acknowledge). We have to keep in mind that God is eternal and timeless, yet from a linear human perspective, it seems that God is "changing his mind" or "repenting." However, from God's perspective, any change for Him would be either for the better or for the worse. If He were to change for the better, then that would mean God had to improve at some point. If he were to change for the worse, that would mean that God was unable to sustain Himself in His own perfection. The overly humanistic and literal interpretation of Jonah 3:10 damages these doctrines and makes God into an imperfect, temporal being. Here is something a pastor at my church said on the topic. As His sovereign will works to accomplish His decrees even moving hearts to change (i.e. “repent” or to “harden,”) God responds appropriately to the changing circumstance – with grief, with anger, with regret – we cannot take away His emotions as a person. Yet, I would argue for impassibility, that is, that although God expresses emotion, He is not emotional. His emotions are not moved by the manipulative control of others but by His sovereign outworking of His will albeit in time amid the changing circumstances within time (as God responds to changing circumstances from our view we see God changing His mind). Thus, we keep in balance Numbers 23:19 that God is not a man that He should repent, rather He is the God that “repents,” i.e. His responses are in accordance to His divine will at work in time. His response to changing circumstances are all driven by the decree of His sovereign will working out both the circumstances according to His will and His sovereign will drives His responses (and emotions). Thus, His so-called “repentance” is anchored in His decree. Man’s repentance is at whim with the changing circumstance. We get caught in the trap of defining God’s repentance from man’s perspective – we need to harmonized the truths of God (i.e. Christ’s 100% humanity and 100% deity) without taking away from either. The reason appeals to anthropomorphism/anthropopathism must not be immediately discarded for a literal and human view of verses that proclaim God's "repentance" and that sort of thing is because we know that God is spirit (John 4:24) yet we do not take literally that He has physical body parts, do we? Such anthropomorphic terms are used to describe God all over the Bible. See Isa. 7:18, Amos 9:4, Amos 9:2, Ezek. 13:9, Deut. 9:10, Jer. 27:5, Isa. 52:10, Num. 11:18, 14:28, Ezek. 8:18, 2 Kings 19:28, Nah. 1:3, Isa. 66:1, Jer. 9:12, Isa. 30:27, Ps. 60:7, Num. 6:25, Ps. 104:29, Ex. 33:23, Hos. 11:8. This should establish the fact that when human terms or characteristics are used to describe God's attributes, we should not take them so literally right off the bat. Numbers 23:19, 1 Sam. 15:29, Mal. 3:6 all declare that God does not change, God does not change His mind, etc... Why would God have said that, not being a man, He does not change His mind in Num. 23 if indeed he was "like a man" in other situations and DID change His mind? The parallelism is right there with the first part of Num. 23:19 as well. It says that God is also not like a man in that He does not lie. What I am saying is that your literal view of Jonah 3:10 forces us to take a localized view of Numbers 23:19. If we are to do this, then we must say that God is indeed like a man in some cases in that He changes His mind. But the same verse says that He is not like a man in that He does not lie... so why would we not then be able to say that God is also sometimes like a man and lies? That is what we're driven to if we use your method of interpretation here, and it leads to heresy. God does not lie, just as He does not repent/change His mind - they are both said here to be humanlike attributes that He does not have. Now, knowing the problems caused by your interpretation of Jonah 3:10, and knowing that anthropomorphisms (i.e. terms normally used to describe human behaviour) are sometimes used to figuratively describe God in the Bible, what is wrong with drawing the conclusion that Jonah 3:10 is using an anthropomorphism as well? It is reasonable to take this statement as an anthropomorphism because of the evidence already given and the argument that if God were to actually change in a temporal way (which is what happens in your view) then His sovereignty and perfection are degraded. The Scriptures quoted there either have no contradiction with what I have presented here (the Jeremiah verses), or have already been exhausted in discussion elsewhere (especially Ezek. 33:11). 1 Sam. 2:30 can go both ways in both of our views. I will repeat that even if you are right about the verses you've quoted, you still have serious problems because your whole theology stands on the free will doctrine which has been disproven by the Proverbs - 16:4,9, 21:1. So even if you were correct here (which I certainly do not believe that you are) then you would have a big problem to deal with - as your interpretation of Jonah only stands if the rest of your theology is absolutely true (free will, Arminian conditional election, etc) and the fact that free will doesn't exist kind of throws a wrench into the whole system. I know you will disagree with this, but I believe I have already defeated you on the points we've debated in the past (Calvinism, conditional election, perseverance of the saints, free will, etc), and that there is no need to go back to those anymore.
|
|