Posted on 01/03/2005 8:18:33 AM PST by kiriath_jearim
Actually there is a little wiggle room Harley, and it simply isn't as clear as you would like it to be. The verse says that he is not a son of man that he should repent. All sons of men are required to repent, but not all do. God is not required to repent, as man is. But apparently he did.
If my grammar is correct, "wasn't" should properly be "weren't".
I did not commit to anything. Then you brought forth examples of why the framers set up their government the way they did to offer proof that they thought man was basically bad. (Never saying once how you thought this would prove that they believed only God could redeem them btw). I would say that they weren't making a judgement on the basic evil nature of man but the ability of some to be evil and others to be fooled.
The full answer to your question is that I have met many people who were good people in that they acted selflessly and had real caring for their fellow man, acted in a moral manner who were atheists. So it is hard for me to square that with someone who is "basically evil". And even they sometimes mentionned a belief in somethin. And I have known hedonistic bastards who have been transformed by the belief and prayer to a Higher Power - but not always the God of the Bible. I have friends of faith including Orthodox Jews, Southern Baptist, Catholic, Mormon, Anglican, etc. And also a couple of Buddhists and Hindus. And with all of them, their faith in whatever they believe pushes them to be better people. So I am not anti-religion by any means. I believe the teachings of Christ offer some of the best morals. My wife is Catholic and our children are being raised in that faith. That doesn't mean that I agree with all of the Church's positions but I don't bash it.
What I can't believe is that simply because someone does not practice the same faith or is not Christian is basically evil. That is why I evaded your question.
Would you not agree, assuming for a moment that God is in fact omniscient and omnipotent, that a perfectly righteous and holy God would be grieved by the sin of His creation even if He already perfectly foreknew it would happen? I am fairly certain that my mother will die before me one day. That will not stop me from grieving over the event, even if I "see it coming" well ahead of time.
The passage in Jeremiah draws similar conclusions. You assume that because He presents a choice that He does not therefore know which will be chosen or how to plan ahead of time and must "alter His plan."
God doesn't lie. God is trustworthy. But, in opposition to Calvinistic doctrine, God hopes for and desires things that do not come to pass. Wicked mankind was grievously disobedient (i.e. acting outside the will of God), so God sent the flood. Saul was wicked and disobedient (i.e. acting outside the very plainly spoken will of God), so God picked another man to replace him.
Do you honestly think that God did not know beforehand that Saul would do as He did and in fact chose to allow Him to be king specifically for the purpose of juxtaposing His reign and actions against that of David? Or was Saul just a divine crap shoot?
So what measure of foreknowledge does God have, or do you not believe He has any?
"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
I saw that, too.
I guess what I inferred from your comment was off the mark, then, huh? :) If so, please excuse my lack of discernment.
"Then you brought forth examples of why the framers set up their government the way they did to offer proof that they thought man was basically bad. (Never saying once how you thought this would prove that they believed only God could redeem them btw). I would say that they weren't making a judgement on the basic evil nature of man but the ability of some to be evil and others to be fooled."
Number 1: You aren't a careful reader - better re-read my first post. Number 2: We're not taking about the subject of "redemption". Number 3: My personal opinions are totally immaterial. What's under examination is the underlying premise for our founding documents, not anyone's opinion about the implications of that premise, a premise which is a proven fact (look again at what underlies our copyright laws in my first post).
"The full answer to your question is that I have met many people who were good people in that they acted selflessly and had real caring for their fellow man, acted in a moral manner who were atheists. ...."
"Good" in whose eyes? Yours? Theirs? Other moral relativists who judge right and wrong based upon the situation? Lots of luck. :) "What I can't believe is that simply because someone does not practice the same faith or is not Christian is basically evil. That is why I evaded your question."
No one is asking you to BELIEVE it. I don't CARE whether or not you believe it. What you believe is God's business, not mine. Don't be so defensive.
I merely posted what I did to show that anyone who believes that people are "basically good", are at odds with what the Framers of our founding documents believed.
The belief that man is "basically good" is also at odds with common sense. If that was the case, little children wouldn't have to be taught not to lie, steal, etc.,etc., it would just ___come naturally___ to them and they wouldn't have to fight every day of their lives to "try" and love their neighbor as much as they love themselves.
Let's not kid ourselves.
Harley, you are the guy who always insists on following scripture. Now...you can tinker with the interpretation of those below, but you should admit that the other side has a legitimate question. You have gone totally to the side of the verse that says that God doesn't repent. In that case, what do you do with these....say they aren't in the bible? Of course not, you interpret their meaning.
Ge 6:7 - Show Context
And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
1Sa 15:11 - Show Context
It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the LORD all night.
Joe 2:13 - Show Context
And rend your heart, and not your garments, and turn unto the LORD your God: for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repenteth him of the evil.
That was ridiculous.
"Why would God be sorry that He made man if they were made and were acting in accordance with God's divine will?"
God has two wills. His plan include things that He permits but He does not like. He is sorry that it has to be like this but it must be for whatever His divine reasoning hold.
If this seems stupid I would remind you of the story of Elisha and Hazael (2 King 8) in which the Lord showed Elisha that Hazael would be king but Elisha knew the evil that Hazael would cause. God knew that Hazael would burn the villages, kill children and women, etc. God didn't tell Elisha to go and kill Hazael before he could cause this great evil. God let it happened. And because He is the one who sets up kings God made it happened. Do you think that God "repented" that He made Hazael king?
If God changes His mind then our salvation is suspect. What happens if tomorrow God changes His mind about that? What happens if God changes His mind about the mode of salvation?
Open theist is heresy of the worst sort abscribing man's attributes to God. To say otherwise contradicts God's own words in Numbers and 1 Samuel. Of course I have seen no interpretation for those verses. The early church fathers never once felt God "changed His mind" and I'm shocked, though not surprise, to see some of our Arminian friend say otherwise.
Anyone who entertains such a notion has a VERY poor concept of God and a poor understanding of God's word.
"Good" in whose eyes? Yours? Theirs? Other moral relativists who judge right and wrong based upon the situation? Lots of luck.
You kind of like putting words in my mouth, either that or jumping to conclusions without evidence. If someone does not lie, cheat, steal, hurt others, is faithful, is good to others, etc. - those are pretty standard societal mores. Not exactly the typical moral relativism of anything goes.
I'm not wiggling out of anything. I'm just stating the facts.
The scripture does not say that God "changed his mind" but it does state in several places that he "repented." Thus, there is clearly a distinction between changing your mind and repenting. I'm not sure what that distinction is with regard to God, but then I can't explain the trinity either.
When the scripture says in several places that God "repented" and then states in one single place that he is not the son of man that he SHOULD repent, it is clear that while God is not obligated to repent (as are all sons of men), nevertheless God has in times past "repented" of that which he had either done or had purposed to do.
Those are the facts. The question is what do you do with the facts once you have established them? Some pretend that the facts are not what they are and pretend that either God actually does "change his mind" (which could be said to border on heresy) or in the alternative ignore those verses where it is clear that God "repented" (which also could be said to border on heresy). (One man's orthodoxy is another man's heresy).
Perhaps on this question the best interpretation is one in which we admit that we aren't really sure how it all works. Simply stated, "God repents but he does not change his mind." Period.
Next problem?
Do you think that most Calvinists would agree with that statement?
Other than Piper, is there any other renowned Calvinist that makes that assertion?
Your grammar is incorrect.
"Please show me how a dead person can make a correct choice."
I have already said it is beyond reason. A spiritually dead person can not reach out to God. I don't see where a disagreement is here between our two positions.
"Only God can bring Glory, not sinners."
On this we do disagree. Our only function on earth is to bring glory to God. Sinners can not...their works are as filthy rags to the Lord, but those alive in Christ can and do bring Him Glory....just as commanded in the 1Cor verse I gave you. The bible states Abraham gave Glory to God in Rom 4:20. We give Glory to God during worship on Sunday, corporately and in private whenever you pray. Have you never read John Piper's Desiring God? It is not scripture, but Piper is a good reformed theologian.
Anyway, thanks for the review of my post.
Does God Change His Mind?
by Wayne Jackson
Christian Courier:
Some Bible passages affirm that God does not change. Other texts, however, appear to suggest that he does especially in response to human activity. How does one reconcile these seeming discrepancies?
How does one reconcile those passages which state that God does not change (e.g., Mal. 3:6), with others that seem to suggest that he does alter his course of action? One example is found in Exodus 32:14, which says: And the Lord repented of the evil which he said he would do unto his people.
To begin with, it is important to refresh our minds with those principles that identify an actual discrepancy. The law of contradiction, briefly stated, is this: A thing cannot both be, and not be:
for the same object;
at the same time;
in the same sense.
To summarize: If different objects, time frames, or language usage should characterize statements that appear to contradict, there may be a perfectly reasonable resolution to the seeming problem.
With these premises in view, let us consider some biblical facts.
Scripture teaches the concept of Gods immutability, i.e., the notion that his essence, character, and will are stable and perfect. Thus, while ordinary things undergo transformation, the changeless Creator does not. He is the same forever (see Psa. 102:26-27). With the Lord there can be no variation, neither shadow that is cast by turning (Jas. 1:17 ASV; cf. Heb. 13:8).
To suggest that God is whimsical constantly changing his mind, as such fluctuations are characteristic of humanity is to reflect upon the very nature of divine being.
The fact that God is omniscient also enters into this subject. The concept of omniscience suggests that the Lord knows everything there is to know past, present, and future. He has never learned anything, nor has he discovered a new fact. He is never surprised by what men may do. He knows our thoughts (cf. Heb 4:12-13), and the very intricacies of our bodies (Psa. 139:1ff; Mt. 10:30). Not even a bird falls to the earth without his awareness of the event (Mt. 10:29).
As noted above, divine omniscience extends also into the future. One of the dramatic differences between the true God, and those that are false, i.e., mere inventions of illusory minds, is Jehovahs ability to see the future. The prophets of the Old Testament challenged their heathen rivals: Declare the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that you are gods? (Isa. 41:23). The hundreds of prophecies that adorn the pages of the Bible are astounding evidence of the Lords foreknowledge.
In view of this amazing attribute, it is impossible to conclude that the Creator of the Universe vacillates back and forth, doing one thing now, then later changing his mind in any literal sense of that expression.
It is a fact, however, that the Scriptures frequently employ figures of speech that seem to suggest that God alters his actions in response to mans behavior. The passage in Exodus 32 is an excellent example of this sort of phraseology.
While Moses was upon the heights of Sinai, receiving the Ten Commandments, the children of Israel, in the region below, made an idol, a molten calf, and proclaimed it as their deliverer from Egypt. The corrupt act was wholly antagonistic to the will of God, and the Lord proclaimed his intention to consume them. Moses, as a mediator, interceded and pled with Jehovah to not destroy them. Accordingly, the biblical text represents Gods response in this fashion:
Jehovah repented of the evil [destruction] which he said he would do unto his people (Ex. 32:14).
The term repented reflects a figure of speech, common to many languages, known as anthropopathism (literally, man feelings). This is an idiom by which divine activity is described symbolically in terms of human emotion. It is rather similar to the kindred figure, anthropomorphism (man form) by which God is described as having physical parts (e.g., eyes, hands, etc.) even though he is not a physical being (Jn. 4:24; Lk. 24:39).
Anthropopathism, therefore, is a figure of speech by which human feelings or emotions are ascribed to God, in order to accommodate mans ignorance of the unfathomable intentions and operations of deity (cf. Rom. 11:33-36). Professor Alan Cole has an excellent discussion of this figure as employed in the Exodus text under consideration.
[Anthropopathism is a figure here used] by which Gods activity is explained, by analogy, in strictly human terms. The meaning is not that God changed His mind; still less that He regretted something that He had intended to do. It means, in biblical language, that He now embarked on a different course of action from that already suggested as a possibility, owing to some new factor which is usually mentioned in the context. In the Bible, it is clear that Gods promises and warnings are always conditional on mans response: this is most clearly set out in Ezekiel 33:13-16. We are not to think of Moses as altering Gods purpose towards Israel by his prayer, but as carrying it out: Moses was never more like God than in such moments, for he shared Gods mind and loving purpose (Exodus Tyndale O.T. Commentaries, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1973, p. 217; emphasis added).
It must be understood, therefore, that though certain biblical passages speak of the Lord being changeless, while others represent him as changing (in response to human conduct), that different senses are in view. In light of this fact, the discrepancy problem dissolves. But when one does not understand some of the common figures of speech utilized by the Bible writers, under the guiding influence of the Holy Spirit, he most certainly will draw many faulty conclusions sometimes very dangerous ones.
Human languages are punctuated with dramatic figures of speech. This phenomenon is no less true in the case of the Scriptures than it is with other literary productions. A failure to recognize this principle leads to numerous flawed ideas.
http://www.christiancourier.com/questions/changingMindQuestion.htm
Sproul
Blackaby (sp?)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.