Does God change his mind?

[OnceConvinced]

A Christian member of our forum recently pointed out a bible contradiction for all to see:

This verse was presented first:
Numbers 23:19 "God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind."

The Christian then attempted to trump it with a contradictory scripture where God DOES change his mind, thus exposing a blatant bible contradiction:

Jeremiah 18:8 "But if that nation about which I spoke turns from its evil way, I'll change my mind about the disaster that I had planned for it."

Here are further verses that show God changing his mind:

Exodus 32:14
So the LORD changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people.

Amos 7:3
The LORD changed His mind about this. "It shall not be," said the LORD.

Jeremiah 18:10
if it does evil in My sight by not obeying My voice, then I will think better of the good with which I had promised to bless it. (wow this is a verse where God says he will break his promise!!)


So questions for debate:

Does Got change his mind?
If he does change his mind, how do we know he hasn't changed his mind about much of what he expected from us in the New Testament?
If he does change his mind, how can we really know what he wants of us today?

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 277 by Claire Evans]

No. I didn't read your blog. I have neither the time nor the interest to read recommended blogs.

I don't think you quite understand what I mean by "change." I mean going from one state to another. Hence, in uttering a single sentence, we continually undergo change, as I explained in an earlier post. Hence, if, as you seem to allege, God went into some state of separation, then yes, that denotes a change in God.

When you talk about God and cannibalism, you to bear in mind what I said about the absolute and relative natures of God. If you could find a way to say cannibalism was loving, compatible with God's absolute nature, then yes, God might have approved of it. But I think not. Since God is seeking to be creative and maximize beauty, however, then God certainty can view something as now passé, move on to a newer form of beauty. [/quote]


Loving and compatible is not what you were insinuating in your previous comment:

This is God as always changing. God always with any and all creaturely feelings; but as those change, so God also changes.

Not all creature's feelings, which I am assuming you are referring to us, starts off moral. So I am getting that you are implying that God's morals evolve with ours? God's values are absolute in that they don't evolve with the time. He is our yardstick when it comes to what is good. He doesn't waver with the times.

I view all knowing as analogous knowing. To know, we must generalize from the familiar to the unfamiliar. If there is one thing we are most familiar with, it is our human existence. Hence, unless there is a genuine analogy or uniformity or likeness, fi you will, between ourselves and the rest of reality, and this includes God, we haven't got an inkling what's going on. Anthropomorphizing and projection aren't the problem, they are the solution.

Anthropomorphizing becomes a problem when it comes to the supernatural qualities of God. We cannot be compared to God because we do not have supernatural abilities.

Speaking of the OT, I have already pointed out major examples where it affirms God does in fact change.

You see, if you don't find out what the origin of what Yahweh is, you are going to persist with believing God has the nature of Yahweh. You say you don't have the time. I would suggest that you make the time to learn something which would totally change the course of your belief of who Yahweh is. Read only the first page, if you like.

The fact that God knows the future as possibilities dose not men God lies to us. Pointing out real possibilities is a perfectly valid thing to do. We all do it all the time. At the same time, we should realize that are talking about possibilities, not matters set in cement.

You know the NT says God knows the future (only the Father knows). Yet you come up with your own interpretation which is baseless. Despite what the Bible says, you don't believe God is all knowing.

Clearly Jesus had no business saying certain things will definitely happen when it was a mere possibility. He was then deceiving.

There is more than one theory of the atonement. Granted, the penal-substitutionary theory is very traditional, though it is not the only one. However, I reject this theory, because I find it most unjust and contradictory. I view the Cross as a revelation that God is the eminently sensitive one, the one who shares in all our sorrows as well as a joys, is no fair-weather friend. Whenever an innocent man is knocked town, God is knocked down. Whenever a child is cruelly treated, God is cruelly treated. That's why Christ said that as you do it to the least of these, you do it to me.

God does feel our pain because He made us. However, how is that a victory over evil? How is it is unjust? You think Jesus having to be put to death to save us is unjust? Yes, Jesus being put to death was unjust but laying down one's life for us is the greatest gift anyone could ever give.

If the Incarnation is not normative for God's general MO with creation, then God appeared in a form which he is not, and the Incarnation is no revelatory power whatsoever and then is meaningless.

That's a poor argument. Things can happen to Jesus which could not happen to us. Only He could conquer hell and death. You appear to think if it could not have happen to us, then it can't happen to God.

You didn't address this:

Numbers 23:19

"God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?"

So do you see that just because HUMANS change, doesn't mean God does. You cannot compare humans to God when it comes to absolute values.

Why regarding God changing is the OT so contradictory?

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 278 by Claire Evans]

Well, I don't know who this Lewis is and I don't care. He or she simply represents the classical theism, which I am well familiar with and reject. The Greeks viewed the world of time and change as a big illusion. Hence, the notion that God is wholly outside time and space. As I said in my previous post, I reject this notion that time is unreal. Indeed, a God outside time could never know us creatures, who are temporal.

That's very condescending. You brush off anyone who challenges your beliefs. What makes you say God outside time could knew know us creatures? How is that impossible for a supernatural being?

I have already explained more than once that God cannot know the future as a determined matter of fact because that would mean God decided it all for us, that we have no freedom. But I believe we do have real freedom and therefore we have to decide for ourselves, and so matters aren't decided until we do so.

Why do you assume God knowing the future means He decides for us? If I know what you will do in the future, does it mean I'm meddling to determine what the future holds for you? You choose to do things and God just knows beforehand what you are going to do. That does not mean we have no free will.

I would add that nothing in the Bible says that Jesus knew Judas would betray him, before the foundations of the world were ever laid. That is an extrapolation from classical theists, such as Calvin, who assumed God had predetermined everything and therefore we had no real freedom, were just preprogrammed robots. The reason why Christ said that about Judas is the Christ is going on his our experience of Judas' behavior and making an educated guess from that. And there is also the matter here of setting up self-fulfilling prophecies. An example would be telling people they are going to fail, which they come to believe, and then yes, they fail. Also, in earlier posts, I pointe out biblical passages where God's knowledge of the future is iffy, such as Sodom: "If I find X." And then there is Jeremiah, who points out God gives a warning, then waits to see what happens, before taking definite action. And I also pointe out some unfulfilled prophecies, such as Ezekiel 26.

Jesus knowing Judas would betray Him knows He knew the future. It's not a wise thing to do to accuse someone of going to do something when it may not even happen. Jesus couldn't just assume that Judas would do it even though He was greedy. If Jesus did not know for sure, He should have kept quiet. Jesus did not put the thought into Judas' head to betray Him. Judas didn't deny it when Jesus said Judas would betray Him. He didn't say, "What makes you say that? How can you think that of me?" Jesus didn't put the thought in Judas' head.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 271 by Claire Evans]

"Although Jesus is God incarnate, He was separate from the Father on earth because He had a different role.

***Well put.

If God was not separate from God, then He would have been susceptible to temptation like Jesus was. "

***God can not be tempted.

[polonius]

[Replying to post 271 by Claire Evans]

"Although Jesus is God incarnate, He was separate from the Father on earth because He had a different role.

***Well put.

If God was not separate from God, then He would have been susceptible to temptation like Jesus was. "

***God can not be tempted.

RESPONSE: That is an error. If Jesus was divine, he could not be tempted.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 281 by Claire Evans]

I don't think you quite grasped my point about the absolute and relative natures of God. God is a living personality, and a living personality is a synthesis of both consistency and change, as I explained in a pervious post. So, by absolute nature, I mean those attitudes in which God persists, enjoys a fixity of will. I clearly outlines those in a previous post. But to repeat, God is always creative, always seeking to maximize beauty, always empathic. However, there is also a relative nature, God as changing, which results from God's fixity of purpose. Given that God is always coming up with new, creative ideas, God is continually changing. God's fixed goal is to elicit such beauty as is possible under the circumstances. Thus, given different circumstances, God seeks different forms of beauty. And that denotes change on God's part. God did not seek the same kind of beauty from the 18th century as God seeks from the 21st, for example. God is always empathic, but, as I explain3d in a previous post, as creatures undergo changes in their feelings, then God's feelings also change.

Also, I am rejecting the idea that God is exclusively interested in morals and then is some sort of Ruthless Moralist seeking to reward a or punish us. God's ultimate goal is beauty, as I said, and that means creativity and depth and breadth of experience, values which are not cherished by moralists. Art and love wink at morality, and often have to fight against it.

When you say you can't anthropomorphize the supernatural, you have failed to address my point that we can't know God unless we can anthropomorphize God. Hence, the biblical imager of God is highly anthropomorphic. Also, I don't hold with the concept of the "supernatural." I hold that God is "supra-natural," not "supernatural." God is the chief exemplification o all metaphysical principles, not their negation, as per classical theism and the supernatural image of God.

There are two key ways in which the Cross shows God's victory. One is that it shows the universe has ultimate meaning, that God overcomes the evil of evils: that the past fades. The Cross shows that God shares in all our sufferings as well as joys, that we can pass our lives into God, and therefore everything has eternal significance because it is all preserved and enjoyed in God's living memory forever.

The second way is that it shows God turning a tragedy into a triumph by eliciting such beauty as is possible under the circumstances. God feels al the tragedies, all the pains and sufferings of live, and then incorporates them into God's own personality, the harmony of harmonies. An analogous example would be a composer writing a sad song or symphony. The tragedy is there, recognized, felt, yet turned into something beautiful.

I don't mean to sound condescending, but I have a doctorate in theology, plus publications. So I know I am well versed about who YHWH is and don't need to go running to some unspecified online source to find out. Who knows but that this online source ought to be reading some of my publications?

As I have pointed out several times already, the Bible does not claim that God is all-knowing, in the sense of knowing the future as a decided matter of fact.

You brought up Num. 23:13. OK, fine. But as I have already point4ed out a number of times, there are many passages in the Bible that do speak of god as changing. What about those? You have yet to address them.

The Bible is not a work in systematic theology or metaphysics. It tells us very little about how God is actually built. It provides only snap shots which do often conflict. it's up to us to see if we can put them together into a meaningful whole. I alredy explained how I go about this, by explaining to you about Malachi 3:5-7, and how the Bible may well be honoring the ideas of an absolute and relative nature to God. Hence, whether the Bible says God is changing or immutable depends on which aspect is under consideration. Num. 23 here is referring to the absolute nature of God, not the relative.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 282 by Claire Evans]

As I just explained in my previous post, I am not being condescending or brushing off people. I am well familiar with classical theism, did my dissertation on the topic. Guys like this Lewis are simply colleagues of mine, not authorities I look up to in order to learn something I didn't already know. I feel free and capable of challenging what have to say and have do so. Furthermore, I view classical theism, which Lewis appears to represent, as passé, rendered obsolete by our modern understanding of reality as relational and dynamic. So the question is, How open are the tradition-bound classical theists to new and creative ideas?

The problem with a God wholly outside times that it makes time a big illusion, unreal. If we could see it all from God's perspective, the ultimate knowing, we would realize there is no time. As Meister Eckhart, the famous Medieval priest and scholar once put it, "God is truth, but creatures in time are not true." As I said before, time is too real for me to assume it is all a big illusion. Also, a God outside time means that god could not perceive of time. Everything would be right now, no past, present, or future. Hence, since we are temporal, God could not perceive or know us.

God cannot know the future as a definite matter of fact simply because that would be attributing false knowledge to God. The only way God could know it as definite would be for God to have predetermined every bit of it. But then, we would have no freedom, as I explained in an earlier post. If we have freedom, then we have to decide for ourselves. God cannot decide ahead of time for us and therefore God cannot know the future as a decided matter of fact, as definite.

I already explained why Christ saying Judas would betray him does not mean predestination.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 271 by Claire Evans]

"Although Jesus is God incarnate, He was separate from the Father on earth because He had a different role.

***Well put.

If God was not separate from God, then He would have been susceptible to temptation like Jesus was. "

***God can not be tempted.

RESPONSE: That is an error. If Jesus was divine, he could not be tempted.

If Jesus was just divine, you would be right but He came into this world with a human nature as well.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 281 by Claire Evans]

I don't think you quite grasped my point about the absolute and relative natures of God. God is a living personality, and a living personality is a synthesis of both consistency and change, as I explained in a pervious post. So, by absolute nature, I mean those attitudes in which God persists, enjoys a fixity of will. I clearly outlines those in a previous post. But to repeat, God is always creative, always seeking to maximize beauty, always empathic. However, there is also a relative nature, God as changing, which results from God's fixity of purpose. Given that God is always coming up with new, creative ideas, God is continually changing. God's fixed goal is to elicit such beauty as is possible under the circumstances. Thus, given different circumstances, God seeks different forms of beauty. And that denotes change on God's part. God did not seek the same kind of beauty from the 18th century as God seeks from the 21st, for example. God is always empathic, but, as I explain3d in a previous post, as creatures undergo changes in their feelings, then God's feelings also change.

Also, I am rejecting the idea that God is exclusively interested in morals and then is some sort of Ruthless Moralist seeking to reward a or punish us. God's ultimate goal is beauty, as I said, and that means creativity and depth and breadth of experience, values which are not cherished by moralists. Art and love wink at morality, and often have to fight against it.

We will have to agree to disagree.

When you say you can't anthropomorphize the supernatural, you have failed to address my point that we can't know God unless we can anthropomorphize God. Hence, the biblical imager of God is highly anthropomorphic. Also, I don't hold with the concept of the "supernatural." I hold that God is "supra-natural," not "supernatural." God is the chief exemplification of all metaphysical principles, not their negation, as per classical theism and the supernatural image of God.

God as a supernatural being we cannot understand. However, the gift of the Holy Spirit enables us to learn the nature of God who is loving. We can know God without understanding His supernatural side.

How would the supernatural negate metaphysical principles. Do you agree with this statement of God?

(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

There are two key ways in which the Cross shows God's victory. One is that it shows the universe has ultimate meaning, that God overcomes the evil of evils: that the past fades. The Cross shows that God shares in all our sufferings as well as joys, that we can pass our lives into God, and therefore everything has eternal significance because it is all preserved and enjoyed in God's living memory forever.

About the universe having ultimate meaning, I reject. Why would that be important to God to have Jesus die for our sins?

The second way is that it shows God turning a tragedy into a triumph by eliciting such beauty as is possible under the circumstances. God feels al the tragedies, all the pains and sufferings of live, and then incorporates them into God's own personality, the harmony of harmonies. An analogous example would be a composer writing a sad song or symphony. The tragedy is there, recognized, felt, yet turned into something beautiful.

I do agree that God can take good out of any situation. Where does the devil fit into this resurrection story? I notice you never referred to him.

I don't mean to sound condescending, but I have a doctorate in theology, plus publications. So I know I am well versed about who YHWH is and don't need to go running to some unspecified online source to find out. Who knows but that this online source ought to be reading some of my publications?

Don't mean to compare you to a Pharisee but they were well-versed in their scriptures yet it didn't stand them in good stead with Jesus. It is unquestioning faith that is important:

Matthew 18:3

And he said: "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Just because some theological college teaches you about Yahweh, what makes you think it's automatically right? Let us have a debate about Yahweh.

As I have pointed out several times already, the Bible does not claim that God is all-knowing, in the sense of knowing the future as a decided matter of fact.

I don't know how much clearer one can get than Jesus saying only the Father knows when His second coming would be. Else God knows or Jesus is being deceptive.

You brought up Num. 23:13. OK, fine. But as I have already pointed out a number of times, there are many passages in the Bible that do speak of god as changing. What about those? You have yet to address them.

Those passages you mentioned do not gel with the NT's version of God. I mean God as only as the Father. The way He is in heaven, not Jesus.

So the point I'm trying to make is, why on earth are there those contradictions? Numbers says God is unchanging yet other passages say He does.

The Bible is not a work in systematic theology or metaphysics. It tells us very little about how God is actually built. It provides only snap shots which do often conflict. it's up to us to see if we can put them together into a meaningful whole. I alredy explained how I go about this, by explaining to you about Malachi 3:5-7, and how the Bible may well be honoring the ideas of an absolute and relative nature to God. Hence, whether the Bible says God is changing or immutable depends on which aspect is under consideration. Num. 23 here is referring to the absolute nature of God, not the relative.

To say that God has a relative nature, you are saying what is true about Him is how people perceive that truth to be. Just because people think God is a certain why, it doesn't mean He is. That is not Him changing. Absolute truth can only be applied to God. A relative nature of God negates that absolute truth.


"Generally speaking, opinions are relative. Many people relegate any question of God or religion to the realm of opinion. “You prefer Jesus—that’s fine if it works for you.� What Christians say (and the Bible teaches) is that truth is not relative, regardless of the subject matter. There is an objective spiritual reality, just as there is an objective physical reality. God is unchanging (Malachi 3:6); Jesus likened His teachings to a solid, immovable rock (Matthew 7:24). Jesus is the only way of salvation, and this is absolutely true for every person at all times (John 14:6). Just like people need to breathe in order to live, people need to be born again through faith in Christ to experience spiritual life (John 3:3)."

https://www.gotquestions.org/is-truth-relative.html




You have changed your stance. You never claimed before that God didn't change out of certain circumstances due to His relative side. It's like He has a switch. Sometimes He changes, sometimes He doesn't. Why would God confuse us like this? How can I have a relationship with God when I don't know what He is going to be like today?

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 288 by Claire Evans]

I still find you haven't got my point about the absolute and relative sides of God. God's absolute nature refers to key aspects of God that do not change. The relative side refers to those aspects which do. Both belong in a complete description of God or any other entity.

I already explained to you how we might overcome the biblical contradictions about God's nature, on the subject of God changing. I also posted to you how Malachi 3:3-7 reconciles these contradictions, pointing to both the absolute and relative side of God.

It is true that people often think about God in an inappropriate way. My point is that this is especially true of classical theists and others who think God is wholly immutable. And I have explained why that view of God is incorrect and lopsided.

I don't take kindly to individuals trying to demonize higher education. I value my graduate education because I know the material I was given to study is solid food for thought. So don't give me this Pharisee stuff. That's a major no-no in serious theological discussions. I add that higher education is absolutely essential, as it enables one to develop the necessary critical, analytical skills necessary for solid, smart thinking. I have little interest, absolutely no interest, when people refer me to online sites. The problem today is that many people think they are experts simply because they have read a particular website here or there. No takers on that one with me. Plus, often people refer to website that are hardly credible, not at all managed by qualified people.

I reject the idea of God as wholly supernatural, because it sets up a major dualism, hence conflict, between God and the world. God works one way, nature another. If so, it is impossible to reconcile the two. The universe becomes an anti-God principle. In classical theism, in these dualistic models, yes, God is seen as the negation of any and all metaphysical principles, as what holds for creatures in no way holds for God. God and the world are like oil and water; they do not mix. I view God as "supra-natural" because that enable one to reconcile God and the universe. What holds for creatures also holds for God but to the nth degree.

You said that God is supernatural, and that we can understand nothing of the supernatural. So what you end up doing is saying that we can know nothing at all about God, rendering God a totally meaningless concept. That is a prime example why supernatural concept of God just dos not work. If finite, creaturely attributes cannot be ascribed to God, then we can know only what God is not, not what God is, a point well stressed by St. Thomas Aquinas, by the way.

I do not agree with "unquestioning faith." I find it leads to a mindless Christianity and blind acceptance of highly questionable human-made dogmas, such as the inerrancy of Scripture and the wholly immutable Godhead. The result ahs been superstition, terror, intolerance, the dark side of Christianity.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 289 by hoghead1]


"I reject the idea of God as wholly supernatural, because it sets up a major dualism, hence conflict, between God and the world. God works one way, nature another. If so, it is impossible to reconcile the two. The universe becomes an anti-God principle."

I also reject the idea of God as wholly supernatural because He is more than that; He is Divine - infinite and eternal.

The world was created by God in accordance to his divine order, according to his perfect will. Nature is not Divine and it functions within its own laws of order created by the higher order, the Divine. Accepting this reality causes no friction while rejecting it would.