 |
| 
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 4/16/2003 2:23 PM (GMT -6) |   | The following articles are by a cyberfriend of mine. The first one shows clearly the scriptural case for God changing his mind. The second is an intriguing study of the biblical usage of the word translated, "foreknow" and its cognates. Any thoughts?
http://pelajus.com/godrepent.html
http://pelajus.com/proginosko.html
Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 4/16/2003 6:18 PM (GMT -6) | | Excellent articles John. Thanks for posting. Kudos to your cyberfriend for such well researched and reasoned arguments.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 4/16/2003 6:28 PM (GMT -6) | | POW from another thread
LET THE TEXT SPEAK FOR ITSELF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Iconoclast
following from article link posted above:
>>>>
God's "Repentance" Principle
I believe that the first thing that we have to look for, in scripture, when studying any topic, is a direct statement from God about that topic. Not an inference, not a doctrine based on an inference, but a direct statement from God. In this matter, does God say that He never changes His mind, or does He say that He does change His mind? If so, why? Fortunately, God gives us a direct statement about whether or not He repents, about changing His mind.This is in Jer. 18:7-10. Here God tells Jeremiah:
At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.
Here is God giving Jeremiah His basic workings, His method of doing things. This statement by God gives us His pronouncements as to whether or not He does change His mind, and on what basis. He says that He will "repent" of an action that He plans to enact for or against a nation, based on the nation's response to His direction and leading. If a nation is under God's judgment because of their evil ways, and that nation repents, God says He will "repent," change His mind as to the punishment He determined against that nation, and bring them good, rather than national punishment. Conversely, if a nation that had been following the ways of God and receiving His blessing turns from Him, He says He will "repent", change His mind, of the good that He planned to bring to them, and bring about punishment and discipline, instead.
This is a clear statement: God "repents," changes His mind. No amount of dithering can change the clear words of this passage. If God says that He repents, changes His mind, who are we to create a contrary doctrine?
<<<<
POW - seems to me that the author of this is letting the text speak for itself. When I let the text speak for itself I see the same thing this author does. When you let the text speak for itself do you see the same thing too? If not, how do we know whether you are letting the text speak for itself or the author is?
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/17/2003 1:25 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
PotOnWheel
SUPERSTAR
2108 Posts Posted - 04/17/2003 : 06:01:44 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TO HONORMAN...
No, honorman, you didn't "rephrase" me. You forgot what I'd said and then went on to put words in my mouth.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
honorman
Bobbie, I was simply rephasing a line POW used where he said, "something the rest of evangelism tried to grow out of." To me he is basically saying if you espouse an open view you need to grow up. That was how I took it. So you need to talk to POW about his phrasing, not me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wrote (go check):
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point being, for me, that the Openness reading is just a plain horrible used of scripture, borrowed from Fundamentalists. Not noble-literalism, but ig-noble. Something the rest of Evangelicalism tried to grow out of. (ala B. & A. Michelsen at Bethel.)
ITS THE COURT LANGUAGE.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above remark does NOT say anything about whether "if you espouse an open view you need to grow up", as you said it ('grow up')
The subject of that paragraph is the READING of scripture in a lock-step pseudo-literal way "borrowed from Fundamentalists." And I made reference to A. Berkley Mickelson's "Interpreting the Bible" (Eerdman's, 1963) as antidote. (Mickelson has been Bethel Seminary's Professor of New Testament Interpretation.) Mickelson is a good source for the GENERAL issue I raised. The actual quote I included that treated the "court language" was from Tarazi, an author that TOM said he used to teach from. Tarazi is also a seminary professor. He has a very traditional approach to scritpure, and friends who have had him in seminary say that he keeps declairing "Read the text. Read the text." He teaches his students to avoid reading Luther, or Chrysostom into first century or even neo-lythic texts. We can't make Scritpure say what we assume it means. (Or shouldn't.)
You got a bad reading of what I posted, honorman.
The Jeremiah text may...or...may...not...be "court language." BUT THAT'S NOT THE WHOLE POINT. It is "spoken" from the King. Perhaps that shows a condescension -- adding emphasis. I'm not up on it. But what I see in the "read" on this thread by open view curriers is a hunt for psychoalalysis, or something. And that lines up just so neatly with post-Freud popular interests in psychology that it BEGS asking just how much of THIS culture is beign read into a text from THAT culture.
Clear?
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 04/17/2003 06:04:09 AM
PotOnWheel
SUPERSTAR
2108 Posts Posted - 04/17/2003 : 06:16:13 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremiah 26:3 says:
Perhaps they will listen and each will turn from his evil way. Then I will relent and not bring on them the disaster I was planning because of the evil they have done.
As the NIV gies it to us, I see the root of this as being: "Perhaps ... Then I will relent" THOSE TWO BOOKENDS FIT TOGETHER VERY NICELY.
But here's a quote from the last page:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rossfadeinout
3. Tom has raised a biblical question. The Bible says in Jeremiah 26:3 "Perhaps they will listen to me..." If you think that God does not know the future as possible, what does this verse mean?
Iconoclast
Bobbie, how do you deal with this question?
thanks,
Iconoclast
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RFO asks: "If you think that God does not know the future as possible, what does this verse mean?"
PoW: It means what it says: "Perhaps ... Then I will relent" T
THE CONDITIONAL IS REFERING TO THE KING'S SUBJECT.
Here is the SETTING of the text. (Mickelson, as cited above)
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This basic formula, too, has many variationr These are: "thus says Jehovah, the God of Israel;" "thus sav Jehovah, the God of the Hebrews," "thus says Jehovah f Hosts;" "because thus said the Lord unto me;" "thus saith th Lord, Jehovah;" "thus saith the Holy One of Israel;" "thi, saith Jehovah, the God of David thy Father;" "thus saith God Jehovah;" "thus saith Jehovah, the King of Israel, and his Rp^ deemer, Jehovah of Hosts;" "thus saith Jehovah, the Redeemer of Israel and His Holy One;" "thus saith thy Lord Jehovah and thy God;" "thus saith the high and lofty One, the One who inhabits eternity and holy is his name;" "thus saith Jehovah, the God of hosts;" "thus saith Jehovah of Hosts, the God of Israel;" "thus saith Jehovah, the God of hosts, the Lord;" "thus saith Jehovah, my God." In context these formulae introduce solemn utterances on the part of God to his people. The formulae occur over and over. This constant repetition apparently has one main purpose which is to impress upon the hearers of the prophet's message the fact that they are being confronted with the declaration of God.5 Whether the statement or comA involves judgment or blessing, it has behind it the cove-Inan God of Israel, a God of holiness, righteousness, power, nan , g Often Israel disregarded these communications, but an preservation in writing of the message of the prophets re- ded future generations of God's claim upon his people and ^"r position under the authority of God. ((scanned))
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THAT is the SETTING. A "solemn utterance" is being made: "Perhaps ... Then I will relent"
Jeremiah 26:3 says:
Perhaps they will listen and each will turn from his evil way. Then I will relent and not bring on them the disaster I was planning because of the evil they have done.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/17/2003 1:28 AM (GMT -6) | | SCRIPTURE IS THE KING SPEAKING -- AS IN MICKELSON ABOVE.
GOD DOES NOT CHANGE HIS WILL. BUT THE KING MIGHT CHANGE HIS OFFICIAL ACTIONS.
GOD KEEPS HIS COVENANTS. AND MORE THAN EVEN THAT, HE IS MERCIFUL FAR, *FAR* BEYOND THEM.
IT'S "KING-SPEAK" ICON.
fini | | Back to Top | | |
|
victoryword
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 4/17/2003 2:53 AM (GMT -6) | | Those passages about God changing His mind only seem to make sense when a person takes them literally. However, I have read some literature on the internet by one guy who espouses Open Theism in which he (unintentionally I believe) makes God look like one who breaks His promises at a whim.
I realize that this type of teaching is rare in OV circles but it still demonstrates the potential of taking a truth to an unnecessary extreme. It's nearly the same as the Calvinists who teach that God is above our human sense of morality so He can seemingly break a promise but because God has His "revealed" will (what He desires) and His "secret" will (what He has actually determined will occur) we will never understand why God said one thing but another happened.
I believe the balance has to be there. I cannot see God breaking a promise when a person has fulfilled all of the conditions. I cannot see God even being unable to fulfill the promise. While I do not want to sound like "Job's three friends," I believe that the Bible is clear that when God had changed His mind, it is either because the person did not fulfill the conditions of faith (in the case of a promise) or they did fulfill conditions and judgment was averted.
I am a firm believer by Word and experience that God indeed keeps His promises.
Just my two cents ;)
If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 4/17/2003 4:43 AM (GMT -6) | | Regardless of WHY God changes his mind, the fact is he does, which would mean that God is somewhat conditioned by his creatures. One of the points of open theism.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 4/17/2003 4:44 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
victoryword
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 4/17/2003 5:40 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Regardless of WHY God changes his mind, the fact is he does, which would mean that God is somewhat conditioned by his creatures. One of the points of open theism.
I realize that the purpose of presenting OV is to dispute the teachings over the centuries that certain passages of Scripture do not really mean what they literally say. I respect that and I commend Open Theists for this.
However, if it was as black and white as you present in your statement that I quote, then the debate would not be continually "raging" on. For example, look at Psalm 89:34-35:
My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David.
I read one Open Theist's explanation of this passage and he says that this only applies to David and the covenant that God made with him. Now this is the same type of sidestepping that some of the opponents of Open Theism make. If this passage can only be applied to david then 2 Tim. 3:16 and other passages can be thrown out the window because all Scripture then is not for our "profit."
I appreciate the hard work done by the OV to present a consistent theology concerning God's repenetnce and man's action having an effect on that. But more than just having a systematic theology, I want to know how all of this works out in my everyday living. If God changes His mind on a whim as one or two online Open Theists seem to teach, then God cannot be trusted and the Bible cannot be trusted. I can present a promise to God and like David say, "do as thou hast said" and God can easily say, "Well, huh, I changed my mind about that one. I've decided not to do that anymore." His promises can no longer be an anchor for my soul in that case (see Heb. 6)
So yes, I agree that God changes His mind because the Bible teaches as much. Now for me, I have to know the CONDITIONS that would cause God to change His mind. It's not just a matter of saying "well the Bible says He does, so He does and that's that." (Please correct me if this is NOT what you are saying. I do not want to misrepresent you). The Bible is written so that I be reproved, corrected, and instructed for righteous living. It's not written just to provide facts. Those facts must have an impact on how I relate to God. That is why it is not enough for me just to embrace a theological viewpoint.
If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 4/17/2003 12:37 PM (GMT -6) | | Here's how I put it:
God changes his mind when He has good reason to, and always in keeping with his perfectly loving and righteous character. It is highly blasphemous to say God changes his mind flippantly or on a whim. Such a "god" would be worse than the arbitrary god of Calvinism.
Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)
revivaltheology.net
Edited by - John Earp on 04/17/2003 5:41:38 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
victoryword
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 4/18/2003 4:43 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Here's how I put it:
God changes his mind when He has good reason to, and always in keeping with his perfectly loving and righteous character. It is highly blasphemous to say God changes his mind flippantly or on a whim. Such a "god" would be worse than the arbitrary god of Calvinism.
Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)
revivaltheology.net
Edited by - John Earp on 04/17/2003 5:41:38 PM
Thank you John. This is exactly what I am getting at. I believe that it is always necessary to explain this when we teach on the subject. One of the criticism of MGT (per a paper I found at CRI last year) was that God could not be trusted to keep His promises according to this theological viewpoint. I felt that the author may have been misrepresenting their view (I make it my job to look at how one critic is representing the one criticized).
However, this should make those who teach these truths about the fact that God does change His mind make qualifiers in these statements. If presented incorrectly one will lose faith in God and this God will be no better than the arbitrary God presented in other classical theological viewpoints. God's changing His mind is a good thing (to avert judgment when we repent from sin) and a disheartening thing (when we fail to fulfill conditions of promises).
While I understand and agree with the reasons why OVers dispute the classic teaching of God's immutability, I still strongly believe that he is not one who changes at a whim (James 1:17) and His counsel remains immutable (Heb. 6:17). I just believe that as we dispute the classic teaching of immutability (God never changes His mind, He never experiences any emotions, and other falsities) we should still remember that God's Holy nature and character is still indeed immutable (Heb. 13:8; Malachi 3:6). This assures me that what God has promised will come to pass.
If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:12 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|