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 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.

Read this and come back and say Yahweh and the Father are the same:

https://hubpages.com/religion-philosoph ... ient-truth

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.

I will post this again:

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

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

Arius just didn't understand God. People's perception of God change, not God.

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.

John 1:1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The word "word" was familiar to both the Gentiles and the Jews. The Greek word for "word" is "logos" and it was common in Greek philosophy. Word is often used to define the execution of God's will. John used the word "word" for the sake of his Jewish readers because the Psalms explain what it means:

Psalm 33:6

By the word of the Lord the heavens were made,
and by the breath of his mouth all their host.


So Jesus was there when the heavens were made.

Therefore Jesus was there right from the start. Are you saying God had no idea what Jesus would do? That He didn't know that Jesus would rise from the dead and come again?

And the passage does not say God has determined the hour, just hat it is up to the Father apparently.

No, it says only God knows the hour. It doesn't mean He will make a decision later as things are revealed to Him.

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.

Why are you bringing God down to our level? Can't you accept the notion that the past, present and future are happening at once so there is no future that has hasn't been set in stone?

As for Paul, that was his belief. That doesn't mean God changed His mind.

[Claire Evans]

[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 the Roman Empire, which did not happen.

So who is Jesus to claim things will happen when it is possible that it won't? Is He trying to mislead?


"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other. (Matthew 24:30-31)

[polonius]

hoghead 1 posted:

hoghead1 wrote:

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.

RESPONSE: Then the OT is wrong and obviously not divinely inspired. The “biblical� God is largely fictional. A self-existent eternal being cannot change.

God grows as the world goes.

How could this be possible unless God is not really eternal? Where would the new thing come from that can be “added� to that which is eternal. How can the totality of existence grow?

I view the universe as the body of God

If so, then God is not infinite.

"I answer that, The idea of eternity follows immutability, as the idea of time follows movement, as appears from the preceding article. Hence, as God is supremely immutable, it supremely belongs to Him to be eternal. Nor is He eternal only; but He is His own eternity; whereas, no other being is its own duration, as no other is its own being. Now God is His own uniform being; and hence as He is His own essence, so He is His own eternity."

[Aquinas]
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1010.htm

[hoghead1]

[Replying to Claire Evans]

It would appear you are claiming some kind of separation took place in God via the Incarnation. If so, then that means some change did in fact take place in God at that time.

I am saying God know the future for what it is in its own nature: the realm of possibilities, not absolute certainties.
To be more specific, I view God as a synthesis of consistency and change, as is any living personality. There is an abstract or absolute side or nature to God: what God always does, that God is always loving, empathic, creative. In that respect, God does not change or vary. But if that is all you talk about, you have described God only in a very abstract way. There is also a consequent or relative nature to God, God as concrete personality. This is God as always changing. God always with any and all creaturely feelings; but as those change, so God also changes. Consider ourselves. The same principle holds. I have been a lifelong train-buff (absolute nature). But now that I have had considerable training and experience operating a historic steam locomotive, I am a very different buff than I was 25 years ago (relative nature).

I view the Incarnation and Resurrection as pointing to the absolute nature of God. If teh Incarnation is to have any real meaning, it has to reveal God's general MO with creation, and therefore is a powerful raising into consciousness that God is incarnate throughout the entire universe, which functions as his or her body. The Resurrection points to the fact that God enjoys a direct, immediate empathic response to our lives and therefore is the guarantor of the meaningfulness of life. The evil of evil is that the past fades: that we achieve a value, only to lose it. So, what is the purpose of doing anything if it is all going to go up in smoke soon enough? My answer is that we can and do pass our lives into God (consequent nature). Because God is the eminently sensitive one, all of our lives are preserved and enjoyed in God's eternal memory forever. Hence, our lives have eternal significance. The Resurrection is testimony to this fact.



It appears that you are holding with what some call the block theory of time, the notion that really, there isn't any time, that the future is happening right now, that walking into the future is like arriving at a hotel you couldn't see along the way, though it was always there. I do not agree with this. I take time seriously. Hence, no, the future has not yet happened, exists only as unactualized possibilities.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 272 by Claire Evans]

Assuming this prophecy actually came from God, then you have to bear in mind that divine prophecies are stating to us possibilities, warnings to get us to change our ways, not matters set in cement. The fact that it was a very real possibility, though obviously did not happen, does not mean Christ or God mislead anyone.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 273 by polonius.advice]

Classical theists, such as Aquinas, made it a major point that God does not change in any way whatsoever. That came from the influx of Hellenic metaphysics and standards of perfection that enshrined the immune and the immutable.

However, I and other neo-classical theists take issue with their metaphysic. It appears to be based on a very lopsided sense of perfection. As I believe I said in an earlier post, it is also is a virtue to be unmoved in the sense that you don't let others deter you, it is also a virtue to be deeply moved and affected by others. If God cannot change, if nothing can make any difference in God, then saint or sinner it's all the same to God, who remains blissfully indifferent. Plus, nothing real can be described by only one pole, only one side of the equation. A true personality is a synthesis of consistency and change.

The fact that God changes dos not mean God is not eternal. It means that God is eternally the eminently sensitive and creative one, always bringing in new ideas for actualization and always empathically responding to any and all creaturely feeling. As new things happen, God experiences something new and is always enriched by this. The transcendence of God resides in the fact that God can eternally profit from all his or her experiences, whereas we can't always profit from our experiences.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to Claire Evans]

It would appear you are claiming some kind of separation took place in God via the Incarnation. If so, then that means some change did in fact take place in God at that time.

I am saying God know the future for what it is in its own nature: the realm of possibilities, not absolute certainties.

That's not the same as changing one's mind. God didn't think, "Should I or should I not send my Son?"

To be more specific, I view God as a synthesis of consistency and change, as is any living personality. There is an abstract or absolute side or nature to God: what God always does, that God is always loving, empathic, creative. In that respect, God does not change or vary. But if that is all you talk about, you have described God only in a very abstract way. There is also a consequent or relative nature to God, God as concrete personality. This is God as always changing. God always with any and all creaturely feelings; but as those change, so God also changes. Consider ourselves. The same principle holds. I have been a lifelong train-buff (absolute nature). But now that I have had considerable training and experience operating a historic steam locomotive, I am a very different buff than I was 25 years ago (relative nature).

Again, you are comparing yourself, as a human, to God. Are you saying that God's nature changes with the nature of humans? So God evolves with the time? What was not considered acceptable to God once upon a time, now becomes acceptable now because humans have evolved? Once upon a time cannabilism was acceptable, now it is not. Did God have this attitude as well?

I'm going to refer you to the OT where you get your idea that God changes His mind:

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 don't compare God to yourself.

I view the Incarnation and Resurrection as pointing to the absolute nature of God. If teh Incarnation is to have any real meaning, it has to reveal God's general MO with creation, and therefore is a powerful raising into consciousness that God is incarnate throughout the entire universe, which functions as his or her body. The Resurrection points to the fact that God enjoys a direct, immediate empathic response to our lives and therefore is the guarantor of the meaningfulness of life. The evil of evil is that the past fades: that we achieve a value, only to lose it. So, what is the purpose of doing anything if it is all going to go up in smoke soon enough? My answer is that we can and do pass our lives into God (consequent nature). Because God is the eminently sensitive one, all of our lives are preserved and enjoyed in God's eternal memory forever. Hence, our lives have eternal significance. The Resurrection is testimony to this fact.

The universe is finite so it cannot be a vessel for Him. I think you are way off when it comes to the purpose of the resurrection. Jesus gave us eternal life by taking on our sins. He saved us from hell. It wasn't a mere "guarantor of the meaningless of life".

It appears that you are holding with what some call the block theory of time, the notion that really, there isn't any time, that the future is happening right now, that walking into the future is like arriving at a hotel you couldn't see along the way, though it was always there. I do not agree with this. I take time seriously. Hence, no, the future has not yet happened, exists only as unactualized possibilities.

Then Jesus didn't know what He was talking about if what you said is true.

By the way, did you read my blog? It is crucial to understand who Yahweh is if you are going to base your belief on an unchanging God on the OT.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 272 by Claire Evans]

Assuming this prophecy actually came from God, then you have to bear in mind that divine prophecies are stating to us possibilities, warnings to get us to change our ways, not matters set in cement. The fact that it was a very real possibility, though obviously did not happen, does not mean Christ or God mislead anyone.

He did not say only the Father knows whether He shall return or not. If the prophecy didn't come from God, then Satan has deceived Jesus. How is that possible? Jesus stated as a fact He would come again. He didn't say it is possible if God decides it's necessary in the future. God would make a mess if He didn't know what to do with my future because He isn't certain of it.

Take James 3:13-15:

Come now, you who say,“Today or tomorrow we will go into such and such a town and spend a year there and trade and make a profit�— 14 yet you do not know what tomorrow will bring. What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes. 15 Instead you ought to say, “If the Lord wills, we will live and do this or that.�

Therefore God's will precedes our actions. He guides our lives and when we ask for guidance before we do anything, His will will be executed. He doesn't wait until we do something because He starts guiding us. What good would that do? Our decision could be a big mistake and then God would have to clean up our mess? It's better that God guides us to make the right decision and then we act.



Also Jesus correctly predicted that Peter would deny him (Matthew 26:34) That would be set in stone because the crucifixion was God ordained.

Matthew 16:21

21 From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.

If God did not know the future, then the crucifixion may not have materialized at all because people may decide things to thwart it. God would have been none the wiser. Would He send His Son if there was a possibility that Jesus would not have the opportunity to die for our sins?

Jesus knew the events beforehand that would lead to His crucifixion clearly. God know nothing things in advance is gambling.

I thought this commentary was very good:

"Lewis' point, I believe, is that we humans live in a world that is measured by space and time. Everything happens in a certain physical space and a certain time sequence. God, who created everything, created space and time. God is not limited by what he created. In his dealings with us he usually works within the space and time limitations that we live in, but he himself is not limited by either space or time. While we are on earth, limited by space and time, we cannot understand how God sees time. The Bible tells us that "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day" (2 Peter 3:8). Almost 2,000 years ago Jesus said that he was coming "soon" (Revelation 22:20). His sense of "soon" must be rather different from ours! (Unless otherwise noted all Scriptures are from the New International Version, and any emphasis has been added.)"

http://www.scriptureinsights.com/Foreknow.html

[hoghead1]

[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.

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.

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

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.

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.

If teh 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.

[hoghead1]

[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.

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.

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.