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?

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 242 by Claire Evans]

We are really talking here about prophecy, not just revelation. No, biblical prophecies are not set in stone. That's why we find unfulfilled prophecies, such as Ezekiel 26, which says Nebuchadnezzar will take Tyre, which he didn't, as Alexander did. That's the prophet can intervene to talk God into changing his mind, as we find in Amos 7. Prophecies are possibilities, not thinks set in cement.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 246 by polonius.advice]

What you say would hold if you follow the logic of perfection in classical theism. By the latter, I mean the doctrine of God as found in the major church fathers (Aquinas, Augustine, Anselm, etc. ) and the historic creeds and confessions. Accoridngly, God is an actus purus, a statically complete perfection to which nothing can be added or subtracted. God is the great Unmoved Mover. This concept of God comes largely from the influx of Hellenic philosophy and standards of perfection. The Greeks enshrined the immune and the immutable. The truly divine, the "really real," was a wholly immutable, immaterial realm.

However, I and other contemporary theologians consider ourselves neo-classical. We find the classical model to be too lopsided in its concept of perfection. Traditionally, the fathers et up checklists of seemingly contrasting attributes, such as being vs. becoming, cause vs. effect, independent vs. dependent, and then went down the list ascribing only one side to God. I hold nothing real can be described by only one side, one pole. I hold that both poles represent virtues. If it is a virtue to say full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes, it is also a virtue to be deeply moved and affected by others. Hence, God, as any living personality, is a synthesis of consistency and also change. If God cannot change, if nothing can make any real difference in God, then saint or sinner, it is all the same to God, who remains blissfully indifferent to the world. But I can put no faith in an insensitive, indifferent God.

I hold that God is unsurpassable, save by himself or herself. I view God as a social-relational being and therefore view God and the universe as mutually interdependent. God grows as the world goes. Indeed, if God could be just as happy, whole, and complete without a universe as with one, then why did God bother to create it? I think God needs the universe. And I don't think needs are a mark of inferiority. Was Toscanini an inferior conductor and musician because he needed an orchestra? Was Beethoven an inferior composer because he needed a piano? I view creation as God's own self-evolution from unconsciousness and mere potentiality into self-actualization and consciousness.

I view the universe as the body of God. I don't know of any other model that does justice to God's great sensitivity and intimacy with all things. God's environment is wholly internal. God enjoys an unsurpassably direct, immediate empathic response to any and all creaturely feeling. We are total strangers to sensitivity on that grand of a scale.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 228 by Claire Evans]



[center]
Assuming what one wants to prove[/center]

A deranged being cannot make decisions, cannot guide anyone therefore defying the point of being omniscient.

That's wrong.

Most deranged people make decisions all the time. Some of those decisions might be "deranged", that's all.

Deranged:

completely unable to think clearly or behave in a controlled way, especially because of mental illness:

That is why people use the insanity defence. They claim they were incapable of knowing right from wrong and could not make a calculated decision. In order to decide, one needs to consider the options.

That would open up God to deception and that cannot be.

Wrong.

Being deranged doesn't mean "not knowing everything". He might know everything and STILL be quite insane. God might be suffering from a mental illness that does not affect what he knows. He might know perfectly well that he is being deceived, but mangles that up in a sick delusional way.

Just like a psychopath might.

As I mentioned, deranged people do not have the ability to make decisions. If God was deranged, then He could not know what the options are and that is not consistent with an omniscient God. How can God have an mental illness? That is exclusive to people. Mental illness starts with a medical disorder in the brain or due to a traumatic event, for example.

"...Susceptibility is passed on in families through genes. ... Mental illness itself occurs from the interaction of multiple genes and other factors -- such as stress, abuse, or a traumatic event -- which can influence, or trigger, an illness in a person who has an inherited susceptibility to it."



http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/ment ... -illness#1

Psychopaths aren't deranged. They can tell the difference between right and wrong and they don't care if they hurt people.

That would mean Satan could deceive God.

Wrong.
Being insane doesn't mean the same as "gullible".

Most psychopaths, for example, are not gullible at all. It would be a grave mistake to think so. In my opinion, from what I know about psychology, the god of the Bible presents as a psychopath with very complex mental issues along with that.

A wizard who is very powerful, but quite insane.
Anyway, that's how I read the Bible stories about God.

You might disagree with that.
That would be fine.

Stories are MEANT to be interpreted.
Isn't the diversity of opinions wonderful?

The reason why God is mistaken for a deranged being is because he was a mere mortal. Yahweh was a living, walking god.

God's work would just implode if He kept changing His mind by suddenly not being in denial.

Wrong.

People don't have to "implode" just because they change their minds.
We don't have to assume that God should be different.

Who would make God no longer in denial? People? People can educate God? My goodness, imagine trying to follow a leader who keeps changing his mind? There would be no order. One bad decision could lead to a disaster and all the changing of the mind could not change the outcome. An omniscient God would know which course of action would be the best because He knows the outcome from the start.

Wisdom comes from consistency.

Maybe so, Claire, maybe so.

But who says that God is wise? Who ever said that God is consistent?
It's ok to ASSUME these things, but still... assuming isn't knowing, Claire.

Is your opinion of God solely influenced by the OT? Was there an unwise decision made by God in the NT? In the OT, yes, but Yahweh is not God.

If God is insane, we shouldn't expect it to be very wise, or consistent, now should we?

You might want to assume that God is perfectly sane, and that's fine, Claire.
It's just that I come to a different conclusion from the stories about God in the Bible.

In my opinion, the god of the Bible is not wise, consistent, good, OR sane.
I think that it's safe to say that most Christians would disagree.

An insane person would never be able to make decisions at all and we Yahweh does make decisions in the OT albeit unwise and inconsistent.

That's not good enough because we don't have cases where Jesus changed His mind.

That's an opinion, Claire.
And I think that it's a wrong one.

We only have the texts that we have.
We don't know everything that went through Jesus's mind.

Maybe the Gospel authors decided to only INCLUDE the times when Jesus was ultra decisive or whatnot. Who knows, right? We don't even know who the Gospel writers were.

But in any case, John 7:8–10 reads:

8 “You go up to the feast. I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come.� 9 After saying this, he remained in Galilee. 10 But after his brothers had gone up to the feast, then he also went up, not publicly but in private. [ESV]

That passage sure look to me that Jesus had a change of plan.

Commentary:

Jesus says he is not going to the feast because for me the right time has not yet come (7:8). When he made the statement to them he had only their word that he should go, and he rejects them as a source of guidance. The fact that he does actually go to the feast suggests that he received instructions from the Father to go after he spoke to his brothers. Such apparent inconsistency is a common feature in the lives of believers who are sensitive to the Lord's leading. "There never was a more inconsistent Being on this earth than Our Lord, but He was never inconsistent to His Father. The one consistency of the saint is not to a principle, but to the Divine life" (Chambers 1935:319, Nov. 14; cf. 184, July 2).

https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/ ... t-Gods-Way

Sometimes it is difficult to know what sometimes is from God and what is not. Sometimes people offer "amateur providence" and suggests someone do something because they believe it is right and not that it is right. So in this case, Jesus did change His mind. However, His mind changed because the Father revealed what He should do when Jesus was doubtful. God, on the other hand, never changes His mind for He was all knowing which Jesus was not.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to Claire Evans]

Malachi 3:5-7 is saying God will change to accommodate us. That is why I brought it up. God persists in certain attitudes, true; but rather than denying change in God, such fixity insists upon change. "That I might return to you" means a change on God's part. See, for example, Jeremiah 15, where God says he has turned his back on Israel, dismissed them, distanced himself from them.

All decision making means a pervious period of indecisiveness. Decision is the resolution of a period of indecisiveness, where you consider the alternatives, prior to making up your mind. Otherwise, it wouldn't be decision-making. Also, as I pointed out, if God cannot change, then God cannot utter a single sentence, cannot express his decisions.

I already pointed out where the NT says God changes. I Cor. 13 is a good example. Now, Christ went from childhood to adulthood, so Christ then changed, put aside childish things. Also, it should suffice to point out OT passages to illustrate that the Bible understands God as changing.

I'm not interested in the OT. I'm interested in the New Testament. Although Jesus is God incarnate, He was separate from the Father on earth because He had a different role. As a human being, decisions have to be made because we aren't omniscient. Jesus wasn't either (Matthew 24:36). The Father as the spirit is omniscient therefore He cannot be at a point of indecisiveness.

I believe I already pointed out major biblical passages where the future is iffy for God. And these have to be borne in mind when you consider what is meant by predestination in the Bible. I don't think it means predestination in the sense of God knowing and having determined exactly what specific individuals will do what. I think it is more of a general statement. God knows ahead of time there is a real possibility some will sin, not accept God, etc.

Then prophecy cannot be set in stone. God doesn't know the exact acts people will do in the future so how can He know how it will all end?

Matthew 24:36

"But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

So God knows when Jesus will come again. That predestination. That's not guessing what will happen based on what people might do.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 242 by Claire Evans]

We are really talking here about prophecy, not just revelation. No, biblical prophecies are not set in stone. That's why we find unfulfilled prophecies, such as Ezekiel 26, which says Nebuchadnezzar will take Tyre, which he didn't, as Alexander did. That's the prophet can intervene to talk God into changing his mind, as we find in Amos 7. Prophecies are possibilities, not thinks set in cement.

So it is possible that what is written in Revelation won't happen? There might not be a second coming? There might not be Armageddon?

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 241 by Claire Evans]





[center]If God can't change his mind, there is no free will[/center]

He always obeyed the father and every act He made was to do God's will. I don't recall a time where He said, "Should I do this or not? What is the better choice?"

So much for free will.

He chose to obey the Father out of His own free will.

So there is a change of mind when Jesus said, "No one comes to the Father except through me?" It's a declaration of truth. It is immovable.

There seems to be only ONE WAY.. no choices.
Whatever God wills... that's it. It is immovable.

I suppose God can only will the once.
Where's the free will?

Believers are meant to choose what God wants for us. However, sometimes we don't choose correctly with our free will. A declaration of truth does not meant a lack of free will. We always have choices in life.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 264 by Claire Evans]

I would be arbitrary to throw the OT out the window, and it very clearly states, in around 100 passages, that God can and does change. As I said before, that should suffice to demonstrate that the biblical God is subject to change.

If you hold, as you say you do, that Jesus is God incarnate, then clearly God changes, as Jesus went through many changes. As I pointed earlier, that was one of teh reasons why Arius denied Christ was God. If you are trying to argue that somehow Jesus gave up his godhood, then you are still committed to the idea that God changed.

The fact that God has made a decision does not mean God now is in a state of indecisiveness. it means God, prior to making such-and-such a decision was, however.

Saying only the Father knows the hour, does not mean predestination. There is no claim here that before the foundations of the world were ever laid, God made such a decision. And the passage does not say God has determined the hour, just hat it is up to the Father apparently. And I believe that when God makes decisions about future events, there are iffy decisions, just as is the case for us. Such decisions cannot be finalized. They always depend on certain conditions that may or may not be met. Look at Amos 7:3. God did make a decision, then, at the prophets intercession, changed his mind. And that is not the only time this happened in the Bible. Neither we nor God know definitely what we are going to do until we get there.

I view prophecies as statements of very real possibilities, not matters set in cement. Paul, for example, believed in a immanent end of the world. But that didn't happen.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 265 by Claire Evans]

Yes, that is very possible. As I said, the future is open-ended, indeterminate both for us and also for God. Also, there is the matter of whether all prophecy comes from God, as opposed to the imagination of the "prophets." I view the Book of Revelation as a hope for an immanent end of teh Roman Empire, which did not happen.

[William]

[Replying to post 265 by Claire Evans]

I view the Book of Revelation as a hope for an immanent end of teh Roman Empire, which did not happen.

I view the remnants of Roman Empire as having eventually set up shop primarily in America. The political symbolism is undeniable. The neo-Romans are a lot flashier nowadays.

The Nazis were also modeled on Roman Symbolism.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 269 by William]

It certainly is true that Greco-Roman concepts and values represent the foundation of our modern world.