 |
| 
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 5:15 AM (GMT -6) |   | Message Go To Page 2 >>
acts9_12out
01/10/01 11:35 AM
King Saul Thwarts God's Prescience?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to look at God's choosing of Saul as King. God chose Saul to be king, and then changed His mind and took the kingdom from Saul when Saul disobeyed. The first important fact is that God "chose" Saul to be king over Israel.
___________________
1 Samuel 10:19-24 (The New King James Version) 10:19 But you have today rejected your God, who Himself saved you from all your adversities and your tribulations; and you have said to Him, 'No, set a king over us!' Now therefore, present yourselves before the Lord by your tribes and by your clans." 10:20 And when Samuel had caused all the tribes of Israel to come near, the tribe of Benjamin was chosen. 10:21 When he had caused the tribe of Benjamin to come near by their families, the family of Matri was chosen. And Saul the son of Kish was chosen. But when they sought him, he could not be found. 10:22 Therefore they inquired of the Lord further, "Has the man come here yet?" And the Lord answered, "There he is, hidden among the equipment." 10:23 So they ran and brought him from there; and when he stood among the people, he was taller than any of the people from his shoulders upward. 10:24 And Samuel said to all the people, "Do you see him whom the Lord has chosen, that there is no one like him among all the people?" So all the people shouted and said, "Long live the king!"
___________________
You see, God chose Saul to be king over Israel. In the 15th chapter of 1 Samuel, God asks Saul to "utterly destroy" the Amalekites. Saul disobeys God and God "changes His mind" about Saul being king. Let's read it,
___________________
1 Samuel 15:1-35 (The New King James Version) 15:1 Samuel also said to Saul, "The Lord sent me to anoint you king over His people, over Israel. Now therefore, heed the voice of the words of the Lord. 15:2 Thus says the Lord of hosts: 'I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he ambushed him on the way when he came up from Egypt. 15:3 Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.' " 15:4 So Saul gathered the people together and numbered them in Telaim, two hundred thousand foot soldiers and ten thousand men of Judah. 15:5 And Saul came to a city of Amalek, and lay in wait in the valley. 15:6 Then Saul said to the Kenites, "Go, depart, get down from among the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them. For you showed kindness to all the children of Israel when they came up out of Egypt." So the Kenites departed from among the Amalekites. 15:7 And Saul attacked the Amalekites, from Havilah all the way to Shur, which is east of Egypt. 15:8 He also took Agag king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword. 15:9 But Saul and the people spared Agag and the best of the sheep, the oxen, the fatlings, the lambs, and all that was good, and WERE UNWILLING TO UTTERLY DESTROY THEM. But everything despised and worthless, that they utterly destroyed. 15:10 Now the word of the Lord came to Samuel, saying, 15:11 "I greatly regret ***(NACHAM - REPENT, CHANGE OF MIND) that I have set up Saul as king, for he has turned back from following Me, and has not performed My commandments." And it grieved Samuel, and he cried out to the Lord all night.
___________________
God makes the decision to take the throne from Saul. He changes His mind about the king that He Himself chose! Now, how does Saul respond to Samuel when Samuel breaks the news to him? Let's read what happens next!
___________________
15:12 So when Samuel rose early in the morning to meet Saul, it was told Samuel, saying, "Saul went to Carmel, and indeed, he set up a monument for himself; and he has gone on around, passed by, and gone down to Gilgal." 15:13 Then Samuel went to Saul, and Saul said to him, "Blessed are you of the Lord! I have performed the commandment of the Lord." 15:14 But Samuel said, "What then is this bleating of the sheep in my ears, and the lowing of the oxen which I hear?" 15:15 And Saul said, "They have brought them from the Amalekites; for the people spared the best of the sheep and the oxen, to sacrifice to the Lord your God; and the rest we have utterly destroyed." 15:16 Then Samuel said to Saul, "Be quiet! And I will tell you what the Lord said to me last night." And he said to him, "Speak on." 15:17 So Samuel said, "When you were little in your own eyes, were you not head of the tribes of Israel? And did not the Lord anoint you king over Israel? 15:18 Now the Lord sent you on a mission, and said, 'Go, and utterly destroy the sinners, the Amalekites, and fight against them until they are consumed.' 15:19 Why then did you NOT OBEY the voice of the Lord? Why did you swoop down on the spoil, and do evil in the sight of the Lord?" 15:20 And Saul said to Samuel, "But I have obeyed the voice of the Lord, and gone on the mission on which the Lord sent me, and brought back Agag king of Amalek; I have utterly destroyed the Amalekites.
___________________
Saul realizes that he is in trouble and tries to squirm his way out of it. He says, "I did what God told me to do!" He lies right to Samuel's face! Then he tries to blame the people for his disobedience! Let's read it!
___________________
15:21 But the people took of the plunder, sheep and oxen, the best of the things which should have been utterly destroyed, to sacrifice to the Lord your God in Gilgal." 15:22 So Samuel said: "Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, As in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, And to heed than the fat of rams. 15:23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, And stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, He also has rejected you from being king."
___________________
There it is! God has changed his mind about Saul being king. He takes the kingdom from Saul! Let's see what happens next!
___________________
15:24 Then Saul said to Samuel, "I have sinned, for I have transgressed the commandment of the Lord and your words, because I feared the people and obeyed their voice.
___________________
Saul lies to Samuel's face again! He has a false repentance and tries to blame his sin "on the people whom he feared!" The king over Israel was afraid of the people? No way! Saul is a liar, and God takes the throne from him. Let's keep reading...
___________________
15:25 Now therefore, please pardon my sin, and return with me, that I may worship the Lord." 15:26 But Samuel said to Saul, "I will not return with you, for YOU HAVE REJECTED THE WORD OF THE LORD, and THE LORD HAS REJECTED YOU FROM BEING KING OVER ISRAEL."
___________________
Saul has a false repentance and begs the Lord to restore the kingdom to him. Will God change His mind about this decision? Let's see if God changes His mind and restores Saul to the throne.
___________________
15:27 And as Samuel turned around to go away, Saul seized the edge of his robe, and it tore. 15:28 So Samuel said to him, "The Lord has torn the kingdom of Israel from you today, and has given it to a neighbor of yours, who is better than you. 15:29 And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor relent" ***(NACHAM - REPENT, CHANGE OF MIND). For He is not a man, that He should relent ***(NACHAM - REPENT, CHANGE OF MIND).
___________________
God will not change His mind about this specific decision. He takes the kingdom from Saul. He made His decision and will stick with it. Perhaps, if Saul would've been truly repentant, then God would've restored Saul to the throne (King Manessah is a great example!). This verse shows that God would not change His mind about the decision He just made. He took the throne from Saul, and would not return it to him. Let's finish our story...
___________________
15:30 Then he said, "I have sinned; yet honor me now, please, before the elders of my people and before Israel, and return with me, that I may worship the Lord your God." 15:31 So Samuel turned back after Saul, and Saul worshiped the Lord. 15:32 Then Samuel said, "Bring Agag king of the Amalekites here to me." So Agag came to him cautiously. And Agag said, "Surely the bitterness of death is past." 15:33 But Samuel said, "As your sword has made women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women." And Samuel hacked Agag in pieces before the Lord in Gilgal.
***Samuel did what Saul should've done
15:34 Then Samuel went to Ramah, and Saul went up to his house at Gibeah of Saul. 15:35 And Samuel went no more to see Saul until the day of his death. Nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul, and the Lord regretted ***(NACHAM - REPENT, CHANGE OF MIND) that He had made Saul king over Israel.
___________________
God changed His mind and was even grieved that He set up Saul as king over Israel. If Saul would've obeyed God, he would've remained king. Why would God, who supposedly knows all the future, chose Saul to be king and then take the kingdom from him? Did He know Saul would disobey? Did He know He would take the throne from Saul? Did God predestine all these actions? I think not! God chose Saul, and Saul freely disobeyed God. If Saul would've been truly repentant, God would've restored him to the throne.
Something to think about....
In Christ, --acts9_12out
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
beso
01/07/01 10:02 PM
RE: King Saul Thwarts God's Prescience?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you nailed it Acts 9-12. One can't "regret" a decision if the outcome was exactly as you knew it would be. Classical theists simply can't take this inspired passage according to its obvious meaning.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Lion-Lamb
01/07/01 11:17 PM
RE: 1 Samuel 15 not inspired??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We non-open theists--Arminians and Calvinists--do not believe that 1 Samuel 15 is an inspired portion of the Bible. I took a scalpel and cut it out of my Bible, but I had to tape it back in once I realized that 1 Samuel 14 was on the back side. See, I believe that 1 Samuel 14 is inspired.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
acts9_12out
01/08/01 3:47 AM
RE: 1 Samuel 15 not inspired??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lion,
I hope you're kidding... I followed the Romans 9 thread, and would be interested to hear what you think... Seriously...
In Christ, --Acts9_12Out
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
beso
01/08/01 9:09 PM
RE: RE: 1 Samuel 15 not inspired??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heh Lion, how about I Sam. 13 where God promises Saul he'll bless him and his house forever? Hope that one escaped your scissors.
acts9-12out, of course Lion's kidding. I don't know, but I suspect he's just so sure God can't truly "regret" that he doesn't think the question merits an answer. For my part, I'm so sure God CAN regret decisions, I find it hard to take seriously the gymnastics some perform to get around I Sam 15 and Gen. 6.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Lion-Lamb
01/08/01 10:08 PM
RE: RE: 1 Samuel 15 not inspired??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sometimes one has to resort to humor. I did so earlier because it was suitable and proper. The opening note in this thread sets up anyone who would oppose the explanation of the text of 1 Samuel 15 in any way that is contrary to the writer's open theist commitment. Any contrary response would be derided. That's why I brought sarcastic humor out of my bag.
If you want to read my basic response, read my latest note in the Jeremiah 26 thread.
Contrary to the expectations of open theists, who have voiced themselves concerning how I would respond, I assure you all that since the biblical text portrays God as changing his mind concerning Saul, I take the text seriously. Taking seriously the Bible's portrayal of God, whether it concerns his love, anger, compassion, provision, change of mind, planning, or however else God chooses to represent himself to us, means that I understand all his self-portrayals with human qualities to be anthropomorphisms. Perhaps the better term, rightly understood, would be theomorphisms.
I quote my friend Moises Silva who makes the point,
Our use of this term [anthropomorphism] reflects our human-centered perspective. Indeed, it is not altogether farfetched to say that descriptions of what we are and do should be termed "theomorphisms"! In other words, it is not as though God looks at our existence and searches for some quality that will illustrate in simple language who God is. Rather, our human qualities are themselves but a reflection of God's person and attributes. And so the tables must be turned (God, Language, and Scripture: Reading the Bible in the Light of General Linguistics, p. 22).
I certainly concede that many so-called Classical Theists do some exegetical gymnastics on texts like 1 Samuel 15 and Genesis 6. I do not.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
beso
01/08/01 10:15 PM
RE: RE: RE: 1 Samuel 15 not inspired??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lion says, "I certainly concede that many so-called Classical Theists do some exegetical gymnastics on texts like 1 Samuel 15 and Genesis 6. I do not."
Sorry Lion. I read your posting on Jer. 26 thread, but don't see how it demonstrates how you'd interpret I Sam. 15 in such a way that God DOES NOT "regret" his decision to make Saul King. (To be honest, I didn't even see in this posting how you'd explain Jer. 26 without saying God "changes his mind").
Another question: Is saying God "regrets" MORE anthropomorphic or theomorphic than saying God DOESN'T "regret"?
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
acts9_12out
01/09/01 3:51 AM
RE: King Saul Thwarts God's Prescience?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you say obfuscation??
Lion,
I was anticipating the old "anthropomorphism / anthropopathism" answer. I get it all the time... I would like to ask, if 1 Samuel 15. or even Genesis 6 for that matter (God repents that He made man, even though He calls His creation "good" - Genesis 1:31) is an anthropopathism, what is God really trying to say here? If this somehow gives us a better understanding of who God is and how He interacts with His creation, what do these passages really mean? Are you satisfied with saying, "That's an anthropomorphism..." without offering any further explanation? I really would like to know what God meant if He was not indeed "grieved" by Saul's disobedience...
Could you help me out here and explain what God really meant, if He didn't mean what He said?
I don't mean to sound antagonistic, but this issue is near and dear to my heart. I am truly seeking a valid interpretation of this passage, calvinistic or otherwise. Most calvinists appeal to the anthropomorphism answer, and offer no further explanation. This is at the heart of who God really is. Is He a stagnate rock sitting outside of time, foreknowing and predestining every event in His universe, or is He a God who responds to our prayers and love for Him? God is not the immovable mover as described by many determinists, but rather, a loving God who is in time with us, experiencing our joy that we have in His Son, and yes, even grieving with us during times of distress.
In Christ, --Acts9_12Out
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Lion-Lamb
01/09/01 9:04 AM
RE: RE: RE: RE: 1 Samuel 15 not inspired??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beso,
Maybe I'm not thinking clearly, but I don't understand what you are trying to say in your first paragraph. So, I leave it until you can help me recognize what you are saying.
As to your second paragraph, yes I believe it is obvious that to say God regrets is an anthropomorphism and to say God does not regret as a human does is a qualification on how we are to understand the anthropomorphism. It isn't difficult to recognize that. Is it? The same thing could be said about any of God's self-disclosure to humans. To say God chooses is an anthropomorphism. To say God does not choose as humans choose is a qualification on how we are to understand that anthropomorphism. This is precisely the kind of thing the Scriptures do. God will not be measured by human qualities, for he does not borrow those qualities from us to reveal himself. Rather, he has loaned those qualities to us, for he made us in his image.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Lion-Lamb
01/09/01 10:14 AM
RE: RE: King Saul Thwarts God's Prescience?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acts9_12,
You have an an interesting way of tweaking my nose and then expecting that I shouldn't mind. Wow! You begin by saying, Can you say obfuscation?? and yet you expect a reply. Foolish me! Here I am offering you a reply. I’ll tell you why I’m replying and not sobbing with my face in my hands. It’s because your assessment of what I have said is so profoundly off target. You haven’t come close to grasping what I’ve said. You call it obfuscation; I call it clarity.
Again you say, I don’t mean to sound antagonistic. . . . Again, I say, you haven’t understood me, yet. Honestly, Acts9_12, you will have to spend more time and expend more thought upon my notes, for I do not interpret the Bible Calvinistically, as you suggest. I make every effort not to impose upon the Bible any external interpretive grid. Many Calvinists do not agree with me. Bruce Ware, for example, would not agree with me. Why? It’s because Bruce Ware (God’s Lesser Glory) treats passages such as God repenting as anthropomorphisms, but he does not treat passages such as God loving or God electing as anthropomorphisms. I believe, as I have said numerous times, that none of what God has made known to us concerning himself could be made known to us except by way of his disclosing himself to us in human likeness.
So, what do passages in which God portrays himself to us as one who changes his mind portray concerning God? They portray God as one who has entered into the drama of redemption, as the leading character in the story. God does not enter into the story as the Greeks conceived of their deities entering into the human domain. God does not stomp about the earth as a Titan. With qualities that look altogether human, God enters into the story he has authored that concerns the redemption of his human creatures. As I’ve already said, when God purposed to reveal himself to his creatures, he did not look around at his creation and search for qualities to which he might liken himself so that he could show his creatures who he is. Rather, God imprinted his qualities--eternal power and divine nature—upon his creation so that everything he made reflects who he is (Rom 1:20ff). In particular, God fashioned us in his image and likeness. Thus, we think because we reflect something about God. We laugh because we reflect a quality that is true of God. We plan because we have that quality from God. We change our minds because change of mind reflects something true of God.
So, if you will bear with me, I believe you need to invert the question you have posed. Instead of holding the human as the reference point by which you expect God to explain himself to you, I believe you should invert your perspective. God is the measure of us; we are not the measure of God. Who reflects whose image? We are like God; God is not like we are. We have the capacity to change our minds because it is a quality that reflects something true about God. However, when we say that, we must never suppose that we have apprehended God, for we cannot apprehend God with such statements. In the drama of relating to his creatures and as the principal character in the story God reveals himself to us as one who repents. How else could we know what God is like? Indeed, God discloses himself to us as changing his mind concerning Saul when Saul sinned grievously against the Lord by not obeying his commands via Samuel. As a matter of fact, if God had not showed himself to change his mind concerning Saul, he clearly would have showed himself to change his mind concerning his commands he gave to Saul via Samuel. So, God showed himself to change his mind concerning Saul as king; God definitely did not show himself to change his mind concerning Saul’s sin. So, what does 1 Samuel 15 teach us concerning God? God does not and will not change his mind concerning sin. God commanded Saul: Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys (1 Sam 15:3). Yet, Saul disobeyed the Lord: But Saul and the army spared Agag and the best of the sheep and cattle, the fat calves and lambs—everything that was good. These they were unwilling to destroy completely, but everything that was despised and weak they totally destroyed (1 Sam 15:9). So, the Lord spoke to Samuel: I am grieved that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions (1 Sam 15:11). The Lord instructed Samuel to bear this word to Saul. He did. Saul responds with another one of his frequent childish acts of sorrow, not a sorrow and grief for sinning against the Lord, but sorrow born out of the fact that he was caught, again. The tearing of Samuel’s garment is symbolic of God’s tearing the kingdom from Saul, and so Samuel announces, The LORD has torn the kingdom of Israel from you today and has given it to one of your neighbors—to one better than you (1 Sam 15:28). And Samuel immediately follows this with the plain and clear characterization of the God of Israel: He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a man, that he should change his mind (1 Sam 15:29). If ever there were a verse that depicts the enduring character of God and not how God acted in this particular situation, 1 Samuel 15:29 is the verse. The verse characterizes the Lord God; it most definitely does not speak of God’s action in this particular situation with Saul. Samuel confidently asserts that the Lord God never lies and never changes his mind. Why not? It’s because God is not a man that he should change his mind. In other words, what 1 Samuel 15:11 means when it depicts God as changing his mind, it does not mean that God changes his mind the way humans change their minds. This is what the biblical text says. This is why I believe it. I’m satisfied with it, even if you and others are not. One thing I purpose always to do is to take the Bible for what it says and not for what I might want it to say. Until someone demonstrates that I have failed to understand 1 Samuel 15 correctly, I shall remain convinced of what I have articulated above.
Your final paragraph is wholly inadequate for me to address. It is inadequate because you don’t offer sufficient options from which I could properly choose to answer you. God is neither an unmovable rock that predetermines every event in the universe, nor is he a God who responds to our prayers and love for him who does not foreordain all things. Your options are entirely insufficient, for I don’t recognize the God of the Bible in the options you offer. Of course God is not a rock in the sense you suggested. But, of course, God is a rock in the sense the Bible portrays him. Of course, God is not the fatalistic predeterminer of every event as you mischaracterize the belief of those nasty Calvinists. That is not even close to what Calvinists believe. Nor is it close to how the Bible portrays God. God is immanently engaged in relationship with his people; God is transcendently enthroned upon the heavens governing all things. Can I fully apprehend this? No! Must I fully apprehend it to believe it? No! Must I believe it anyway? Indeed! For that is precisely what the Scriptures require of me.
Have a nice day!
Lion-Lamb
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
acts9_12out
01/11/01 7:40 PM
RE: RE: RE: King Saul Thwarts God's Prescience?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lion,
I meant no disrespect. You call it clarity? Well, it's clear as mud to me! Actually, you said,
So, what does 1 Samuel 15 teach us concerning God? God does not and will not change his mind concerning sin.
I agree. In this case, you still fail to answer the question. The Scripture is very clear here. Saul knows that He has disobeyed God. He tries to blame his sin on the people (1 Sam 15:24). There is no accountability for Saul here. He is not truly repentant. God repented twice in this passage that He made Saul king (1 Sam 15:11,35). Why? Did God make a bad choice? No way. As you've rightly noted, Saul sinned, and God took the kingdom from him. Now, why doesn't God repent in verse 29? It is very clear... Why try to muddy the waters? After Saul tries to blame the people for his sin, he asks Samuel to return with him so that he may worship the Lord. He wants to remain king! Samuel informs him that God will not repent, or change His mind concerning taking the kingdom from Saul. With this in mind, you still say,
If ever there were a verse that depicts the enduring character of God and not how God acted in this particular situation, 1 Samuel 15:29 is the verse. The verse characterizes the Lord God; it most definitely does not speak of God’s action in this particular situation with Saul.
Please deal with the context. If 1 Samuel 15:29 is the verse that depicts the enduring character of God, then what about another wicked King?
King Manasseh was very wicked...
2 Chronicles 33:1-13 (New King James Version)
1 Manasseh was twelve years old when he became king, and he reigned fifty-five years in Jerusalem. 2 But he did evil in the sight of the LORD, according to the abominations of the nations whom the LORD had cast out before the children of Israel. 3 For he rebuilt the high places which Hezekiah his father had broken down; he raised up altars for the Baals, and made wooden images; and he worshiped all the host of heaven and served them. 4 He also built altars in the house of the LORD, of which the LORD had said, "In Jerusalem shall My name be forever." 5 And he built altars for all the host of heaven in the two courts of the house of the LORD. 6 Also he caused his sons to pass through the fire in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom; he practiced soothsaying, used witchcraft and sorcery, and consulted mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke Him to anger. 7 He even set a carved image, the idol which he had made, in the house of God, of which God had said to David and to Solomon his son, "In this house and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, I will put My name forever; 8 and I will not again remove the foot of Israel from the land which I have appointed for your fathers--only if they are careful to do all that I have commanded them, according to the whole law and the statutes and the ordinances by the hand of Moses." 9 So Manasseh seduced Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem to do more evil than the nations whom the LORD had destroyed before the children of Israel.
I would even argue that Manasseh was more wicked than Saul. However, Manasseh had a true repentance (unlike Saul) and God changes His mind again... He restores manasseh to the throne...
10 And the LORD spoke to Manasseh and his people, but they would not listen. 11 Therefore the LORD brought upon them the captains of the army of the king of Assyria, who took Manasseh with hooks, bound him with bronze fetters, and carried him off to Babylon. 12 Now when he was in affliction, he implored the LORD his God, and humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers, 13 and prayed to Him; and He received his entreaty, heard his supplication, and brought him back to Jerusalem into his kingdom. Then Manasseh knew that the LORD was God.
You see, if Saul would've repented, and not blamed the people, God would've restored him to his throne, just like Manasseh. God did not repent, or change His mind about returning the kingdom to Saul. It was a specific event that God chose not to change His mind about. You continue,
In other words, what 1 Samuel 15:11 means when it depicts God as changing his mind, it does not mean that God changes his mind the way humans change their minds. This is what the biblical text says. This is why I believe it. I’m satisfied with it, even if you and others are not. One thing I purpose always to do is to take the Bible for what it says and not for what I might want it to say. Until someone demonstrates that I have failed to understand 1 Samuel 15 correctly, I shall remain convinced of what I have articulated above.
You're right. I'm not satisfied. You claim that you take the Bible for what it says, and then contradict yourself. The context determines why God does or does not change His mind.
God repents because of wickedness - Genesis 6:4-7; 1 Samuel 15:11,24-29,3
God repents of disaster or good - Jer 18:1-12
God repents because of His compassion - Deu 32:36; Jud 2:18; 2 Sam 24:15-16; 1 Ch 21:14-15; Psa 106:43-45; Joel 2:12-14
God repents of stated harm because of prayer - Ex 32:9-14; Amos 7:1-6
God doesn't repent in certain situations (context shows why) - Num 23:19; 1 Sam 15:29; Psa 110:1-4
God wants to repent - Jer 26:3,13,19; Jer 42:7,9-10
God will not or did not repent - Jer 4:27-28; Jer 20:16; Eze 24:13-14
God was even weary of repentimg - Jer 15:6 - You have forsaken Me," says the LORD, "You have gone backward. Therefore I will stretch out My hand against you and destroy you; I am weary of repenting!"
God is displeased and wonders - Isa 59:15-16; Psa 78:40-41
God hopes or wishes - Deu 5:28-29; Psa 81:8-13; Isa 48:17-18; Mat 23:37
God laments over other peoples - Isa 15:5; Isa 16:6-13
As for my final paragraph, I'm sorry you didn't like the choices. Here are two general choices then... Either God is a God of Love, who desires us to requit that love, or He is the grand puppeteer, manipulating events, thoughts, prayers, etc... to get a desired response that He Himself predestined. The fact that He changes His mind about certain things, shows the latter to be untrure.
Have a blessed day Lion, and thanks for this awesome discussion about our Lord...
In Christ, --Acts9_12Out
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Lion-Lamb
01/11/01 8:46 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: King Saul Thwarts God's Prescience?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acts9_12,
I’m truly sorry my note to you will be disproportionately short compared to yours. I fear that conversation with you is about to run out. I fear I can’t offer anything to you that you will accept. Your paths of thinking and believing are radically different from mine. Again, the two choices you offer in your final paragraph are no better than the ones you offered before. I don’t find my beliefs included in either option. That suggest to me that you haven’t understood anything I’ve said in response to you. In fact, your entire note makes that clear to me. That’s why I am only writing this much to you. As for the remainder of this note, I am pasting into this note the bulk of a response I submitted to Ghost-Dog-Girl in the thread: Open Theism and the Trinity--Christocentric Theology of God .
If this note does not dispel the darkness you see when you read my notes on anthropomorphism, then I’m willing to concede that nothing I say will give you any grasp of the matter. I willing to try this time, but I’m prepared to give up. But I will not concede that you are correct and I am wrong. All I will concede is that I am powerless to assist you to see the light and that evidently light will not dawn upon you in conjunction with reading my notes on the Scriptures. I do want you to realize that I didn’t just recently begin to think about anthropomorphism. I have worked on this for years. And it may surprise you, but there are numerous people who have come to grasp the truth concerning anthropomorphism as I have been instrumental to convey it to them. For that I praise God. Now here is the note from the other thread.
______________________________________________
First, though I have to assume that you read my note concerning what Herman Bavinck said, I will paste it here. His statement is that important.
God uses human language to reveal himself and manifests himself in human forms. It follows that Scripture does not merely contain a few anthropomorphisms; on the contrary, all Scripture is anthropomorphic. From beginning to end Scripture testifies a condescending approach of God to man. The entire revelation of God becomes concentrated in the Logos, who became “flesh.” It is as it were one humanization, one incarnation of God. If God were to speak to us in divine language, no one would be able to understand him; but ever since creation, he, in condescending grace, speaks to us and manifests himself to us in human fashion (Bavinck, The Doctrine of God, 86.
Now, with Bavinck’s statement fresh in your mind, I’ll see if I have the capacity to make it clear to you why a proper grasp of anthropomorphism is so utterly crucial to the whole discussion to correct both classical Christian theism and open theism.
You mentioned the fact that God reveals himself in ways other than anthropomorphic, such as in terms of animals (like the lion or the lamb [got my moniker in there]) or in natural ways such as wind or breath. We could add to this other natural features such as a rock or the sun, etc. Yes, I readily acknowledge all this. But, of course, I don’t know of anyone in the church who is literalizing any of these. I haven’t read anyone who claims that God is actually a lion, or that Jesus Christ is actually a wooly lamb that was slaughtered. Therefore, it isn’t incumbent for us to seek to correct that which is not being misunderstood. It is incumbent upon God-fearing believers to seek to offer correction for those who do commit errors concerning God’s self-revelation. Since, I am convinced that classical Christian theists to some degree and open theists a much greater degree are committing an error with reference to biblical anthropomorphism and not biblical imagery that draws an analogy between God and animals, I will address the error and not seek to correct open theists and classical Christian theists wherein they are not incorrectly reading the Bible.
You suggest that people may be confused about the discussion because there is a narrower sense of anthropomorphism and a broader sense. You may be right. If so, let’s be sure to clarify. You asked if it is proper to distinguish a narrow figurative sense (God’s eyes, hands, feet, etc.) from a broad sense in which all talk about God is anthropomorphic.
Here is what I mean when I talk about anthropomorphism. Actually the distinction you make is one that John Sanders attempts to make. I believe it is improper to make such a distinction. Instead, literary folks might see a distinction elsewhere. Some folks want to distinguish anthropomorphism, God’s self-revelation in human form (eyes, hands, feet), from anthropopathism, God’s self-revelation in terms of human passions, feelings, and attitudes. Yet, others properly point out that anthropomorphism correctly bears a broader use to include any ascription of human qualities or form to anything that is not human. That could include any non-human created thing or God. So, when I use the term anthropomorphism, I use it in the broader sense. I do it because it has been common among biblical scholars to do so. I do it to reduce confusion of using different technical terms. I do it also to include all the biblical metaphors that concern human relationships that God employs to disclose himself. So, for example, father, king, master (lord), judge, or husband all concern human relationships. When God is pleased to reveal himself as any of these, the Bible is using anthropomorphism.
Now I come to the most significant question you were asking. Why is a proper understanding of biblical anthropomorphism so crucial other than to remind us who we are and who God is? I suppose it is kind of like your computer’s operating system. It is easy to fail to take note of how crucial the operating system is, unless, of course, your computer fails to boot up and run. Under normal circumstances, you take little notice of the operating system. Yet, asking why anthropomorphism is so important is much like asking why your computer’s operating system is so crucial.
Basically, apart from anthropomorphism, you would not know God. That, it seems, makes anthropomorphism rather important. You need to realize that you have not yet grasped the crucial point that Mephi and I have been making in both this thread and the one on Jeremiah 26. The point is this: The principal anthropomorphism of Scripture is God’s speech to humans. Speech, no less than mouth, eyes, feet, hands, or ears, entails anthropomorphism. Simply stated, the fact that God speaks to humans means that God speaks our language, our human language. God does not speak to us in his language; he speaks to us in our language. The fact that God does speak in our language means that all God’s self-revelation, throughout the whole Bible, is fundamentally given in human terms. So, when Jeremiah tells us, “In the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah, this word came from the Lord. . .” (Jer 26:1), those words reminds us that everything God is about to tell us is revealed to us in human form and likeness. The whole context is swallowed up in anthropomorphism. In other words, neither in Jeremiah 26 nor anywhere else in Scripture does God pull back the curtain of heaven and speak to us in his own language; he always speaks to us in our language. Neither in Jeremiah nor anywhere else in Scripture does God pull back the curtain of heaven and show himself to us as he actually is; he always mediates his likeness to us in terms of the things he has created. Chief among his creation is humanity, made in his likeness and image. Thus, as God relates to us he reveals himself to us as if he were a human. So, he reveals himself to us as if he were a human who plans, who chooses, who loves, who gets angry, who mourns, who laughs, who changes his mind, etc., etc., etc. As you said, Although we are not capable of spanning the gap from finite to infinite, God has demonstrated that he is willing and able to effectively bridge this gap. How has God bridged the wide chasm? He has done so by revealing himself to us as if he were a man, though he is not. Then, wonder of wonders, God who is not human became human. Thus, Jesus Christ became the ultimate anthropomorphism as he revealed the Father to us.
______________________________________________
In eager expectation,
Lion-Lamb
P.S. I mean no disrespect in anything I've said. It's simply a case in which you will either understand what I'm saying or we will suspend our exchange of notes. I believe I have been clear. You think it’s as clear as mud. I believe you need to take off your open theist glasses and read both my notes and the biblical text without your biases. Again, no disrespect intended.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
RevivalTheology
01/12/01 2:19 PM
RE: King Saul Thwarts God's Prescience?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lion,
I believe I had read your posts in this, and a few other, threads concerning anthropomorphisms accurately and with understanding and believe I know what you're getting act.
In so far as of His self-revelation is concerned, God of necessity must use anthropomorphisms because this is the only way He can communicate to us that we would understand. Believe it or not, I can accept that.
The issue becomes, it seems to me, how are we to qualify these anthropomorphisms about God. You say that God reveals Himself to us as if He changes His mind. Do we need not take this a step further and say that God reveals Himself to us as if He were a human changing His mind?
In either case, you continue that we should qualify what the anthropomorphism means. That when we say God acts as if He were a human changing His mind, He does not do the same thing a human does when changing his mind. Am I understanding you?
If so, I am can agree with this premise and yet still reject your conclusions. I can also ask "who says?" IOW, when we say God acts as if He were a human changing His mind, WHO SAYS that this doesn't mean that action is so similar as to be practically identical to what a human does when changing his mind?
You have stated that based on your reading of 1 Sam 15:29, you find it normative of how we are to understand the anthropomorphism of God changing His mind, and that you have not read or heard anything that disuades you from that position. I can say that I find 1 Sam. 15:29 dealing specifically with God's attitude toward righteous behavior, and that He will not change His mind about THAT, unlike what Saul has done. IOW, it is not specific to only Saul's situation, but is not as general as you would have it. This appears to me the best way to resolve the apparent contradictions between the declarative statement by Samuel here, and the numerous other descriptions and promises of God changing His mind (or doing something like that) that appear in the same passage and elsewhere in scripture. I have read or heard nothing that disuades me from this position, and until I do "here I stand".
Now, if I am missing something to your thesis, let me know.
In the Lamb
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Lion-Lamb
01/12/01 3:01 PM
RE: RE: King Saul Thwarts God's Prescience?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revival,
This is the third note I have written today to correct precisely the same error. As with Greg, Beso, Ghost-Dog-Girl, Shine, and others, you have failed to read my notes correctly. Please be patient as I explain. You said in your third paragraph:
You say that God reveals Himself to us as if He changes His mind. Do we need not take this a step further and say that God reveals Himself to us as if He were a human changing His mind?
No, I did not say what you claim. I said precisely what you think I should have said. (At least you recognized that much.) Where’s the proof that you misread my notes? The proof is in my own note directly above yours. Did you read that note which I addressed to Acts9_12? Here’s what I said in my note. To make it obvious to you, I am highlighting the crucial words.
Chief among his creation is humanity, made in his likeness and image. Thus, as God relates to us he reveals himself to us as if he were a human. So, he reveals himself to us as if he were a human who plans, who chooses, who loves, who gets angry, who mourns, who laughs, who changes his mind, etc., etc., etc.
So, the very fact that you failed to quote me accurately and that you corrected me by saying what I should have said when I already said it, I might suggest the assertion of your first paragraph that you understand and believe you know what I’m getting at is put on shaky ground.
Getting close to exasperated,
Lion-Lamb
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
adiaphora
(Community Owner)
01/12/01 3:02 PM
RE: RE: King Saul Thwarts God's Prescience?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the sake of focusing discussion, those of you who wish to respond to the discussion of anthropomorphisms in general (unless your response specifically addresses the question of whether or not King Saul thwarted God's prescience) please direct your replies to the thread entitled, "Anthropomorphisms."
Please specify the author and location of the post you are responding to so people can go back to the earlier discussion if they want to.
Thanks, ~ a d i a p h o r a
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
RevivalTheology
01/12/01 7:42 PM
RE: RE: RE: King Saul Thwarts God's Prescience?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lion,
Well bust my balloons, gee you sho are right!
Why do you focus on minor things and yet ignore the main point? I believe I understand quite well what you're getting at, yet you still don't deal with my question: who SAYS that when God reveals Himself as if He were human He doesn't mean that He does something almost exactly like what we mean by those same words in reference to a human?
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Lion-Lamb
01/12/01 9:05 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: King Saul Thwarts God's Prescience?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revival,
You ask,
Why do you focus on minor things and yet ignore the main point? I believe I understand quite well what you're getting at, yet you still don't deal with my question: who SAYS that when God reveals Himself as if He were human He doesn't mean that He does something almost exactly like what we mean by those same words in reference to a human?
You call it minor; I call it major. I was not going to advance any further in the discussion until I had some satisfaction that you recognized the difference in expressions. It is most definitely not minor. It is absolutely crucial to everything I have been saying and will say concerning God's self-disclosure in human form.
So, you ask, Who SAYS that when God reveals Himself as if He were human He doesn't mean that He does something almost exactly like what we mean by those same words in reference to a human? God himself does in his own word. That is precisely the function of passages such as 1 Samuel 15:29; Numbers 23:19; Isaiah 40:18, 25; 46:5; etc., etc. Examine each of these passages very carefully. Perhaps this should stimulate sharper focused discussion.
Lion-Lamb
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
A_Pilgrim
01/13/01 12:55 AM
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: King Saul Thwarts God's Prescience ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear chat room:
When Lion-Lamb said [in OT and the Trinity] God “reveals himself to us as if he were a human who plans, who chooses, who loves, who gets angry, who mourns, who laughs, who changes his mind, etc.”, I did not have any difficulty perceiving what he said. What shocked me is that so many twisted his words (which he has tried to rescue four times today) and then pontificated, based on their contorted reworking of his statement.
If this is the way you read a book, you are desperately in trouble since the author is not there to correct your misreading. At least in this chat room, Lion-Lamb can rightfully jerk his words back from the those who distort them. More importantly, if this is the way you read the Bible, you will never come to the truth, for you will twist God’s most basic revelations about man and himself (2 Peter 3:16 comes to mind).
It is distressing to think that most of you are academically oriented (or you would not be in this discussion room) and yet too many can’t accurately read a statement as SIMPLE as the one above. The lesser educated at least have an excuse. What’s yours?
I am here to learn about my God and not listen to a bunch of hyenas crunch on lamb bones of their own manufacturing. If I, a redeemed sinner, am sickened, don’t you suppose God is? If an unbeliever stops by to read, I’m sure he will be genuinely impressed by your Christian charity and acumen.
Pilgrim
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
acts9_12out
01/13/01 1:49 AM
RE: King Saul Thwarts God's Prescience?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lion,
Thank you for taking the time to cut and paste that information. Before we enter further into this philosophical discussion about anthropomorphisms / anthropopathisms and when God speaks anthropomorphically, etc... I would ask that you clarify a point you made in a previous post... You said,
God does not and will not change his mind concerning sin.
This was how you chose to interpret 1 Samuel 15:29. Your meaning of this verse was that 1 Sam 15:29 (and Num 23:19) is a constant to measure God by. In fact, you said,
If ever there were a verse that depicts the enduring character of God and not how God acted in this particular situation, 1 Samuel 15:29 is the verse.
In my next post, I offered the Biblical example of King Manasseh. Here are a few excerpts from the previous post.
2 Chronicles 33 (NKJV)
1 Manasseh was twelve years old when he became king, and he reigned fifty-five years in Jerusalem.
2 But he did evil in the sight of the LORD, according to the abominations of the nations whom the LORD had cast out before the children of Israel.
6b he practiced soothsaying, used witchcraft and sorcery, and consulted mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke Him to anger.
7 He even set a carved image, the idol which he had made, in the house of God, of which God had said to David and to Solomon his son, "In this house and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, I will put My name forever;
9 So Manasseh seduced Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem to do more evil than the nations whom the LORD had destroyed before the children of Israel.
Lion, Manasseh was the most evil king ever! He was more disobedient than Saul could ever dream of being. The difference between Manasseh and Saul, however, is that Manasseh was truly repentant. He repented before the Lord. Guess what? God changed His mind and returned that kingdom to Manasseh.
2 Chronicles 33 (NKJV)
10 And the LORD spoke to Manasseh and his people, but they would not listen.
11 Therefore the LORD brought upon them the captains of the army of the king of Assyria, who took Manasseh with hooks, bound him with bronze fetters, and carried him off to Babylon.
12 Now when he was in affliction, he implored the LORD his God, and humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers,
13 and prayed to Him; and He received his entreaty, heard his supplication, and brought him back to Jerusalem into his kingdom. Then Manasseh knew that the LORD was God.
But, in your previous post, you said,
God does not and will not change his mind concerning sin.
Could you please explain why God restored the kingdom to Manasseh, if according to 1 Samuel 15:29, God does not change His mind concerning sin? I would ask that you give a Biblical answer. I have noticed that many of your responses concerning anthropomorphisms and God's changing His mind have been philosophical and much conjecture. I'm not saying that this is a bad thing, but my philosophy and conjecture are just as good as the next guy's, if you know what I mean...
I would like to answer my own question if I may. I would still like to hear your answer and why you agree or disagree with the answer I'm about to give... My question was,
Could you please explain why God restored the kingdom to Manasseh, if according to 1 Samuel 15:29, God does not change His mind concerning sin? I would ask that you give a Biblical answer.
You already know that I believe the context of 1 Samuel 15 shows that God will not change His mind about restoring the kingdom to Saul, because of Saul's disobedience and false repentance. It adresses a specific situation.
Now, what about Manasseh? I'll let God's word answer for me...
Ezekiel 18:21-28 (New King James Version)
18:21 "But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 18:22 None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; because of the righteousness which he has done, he shall live. 18:23 Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?" says the Lord God, "and not that he should turn from his ways and live? 18:24 "But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that the wicked man does, shall he live? All the righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; because of the unfaithfulness of which he is guilty and the sin which he has committed, because of them he shall die. 18:25 "Yet you say, 'The way of the Lord is not fair.' Hear now, O house of Israel, is it not My way which is fair, and your ways which are not fair? 18:26 When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity, and dies in it, it is because of the iniquity which he has done that he dies. 18:27 Again, when a wicked man turns away from the wickedness which he committed, and does what is lawful and right, he preserves himself alive. 18:28 Because he considers and turns away from all the transgressions which he committed, he shall surely live; he shall not die.
If this passage doesn't apply to Manasseh's actions, then I don't know what does. Manasseh was very wicked, and was a hater of God. As he was being taken by God's hand to die, he prayed to God, and God changed His mind and restored him to the throne. Lion, please answer the question. Why would God change His mind concerning Manasseh's sin, if you say that 1 Sam 15:29 and Numbers 23:19 show that God does not change His mind, ever...
God bless you,
In Christ, --Acts9_12Out
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
01/13/01 2:42 AM
Alrighty then...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Lion,
Dude, I already see it. Go easy on it, ok?
With empathy for exasperation,
Mephi2K
| | Back to Top | | |
 | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:04 AM (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 |
|
|