Can God change his mind?

[Andy T.]

In the same way, however, man's destruction is conditional upon his refusal to repent. "Repent and believe or you will surely perish." If God can "relent" with regard to Moses based upon his conditional statement, why couldn't he relent with regard to anyone who might repent and believe?

I agree - the warning of hell is conditional, just like the warnings to Hezekiah and Moses were conditional. If mercy is sought, mercy will be granted.

 

[Andy T.]

I don't agree. The text says, "God changed his mind," and you are the ones trying to explain that away and theologize it while Webdog is merely taking it for what it says.

I think Webdog and I (and you) essentially agree as I posted earlier. God changed His course due to a certain condition being met, namely the request for mercy.

 

[Skandelon]

I think Webdog and I (and you) essentially agree as I posted earlier. God changed His course due to a certain condition being met, namely the request for mercy.

I can live with dat. :thumbs:

 

[Andy T.]

I do not see how God's words to Moses could not have been a similar test of faith to that which He did with Abraham. God promised Abraham that He would make of him a great nation. According to Romans 9:7-9, Isaac was the promised seed through which the nation would come.

God clearly commanded Abraham to offer Isaac as a burnt sacrifice. This means that God clearly commanded Abraham to kill Isaac. Now, Abraham, knowing that God had promised a nation through Isaac who had not yet married believed that God may have planned to raise Isaac from the dead (Hebrews 11:17-19). Abraham, believing that God's own promises were sure, had to believe that somehow Isaac would be the father of a nation.

Now, just because the narrative does not explicitly say that God was testing Moses, does not mean it was not implicit. God prophesied through Jacob that Messiah would come as a king through the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10). God told Moses in Midian that He would deliver the Israelites "unto a land flowing with milk and honey" (Exodus 3:7-8). In other words, the same people that were in bondage to Egypt (which Moses was not), God said would go to the Promised Land.

When God told Moses to let Him destroy the Israelites and make Moses a great nation, He was clearly testing the faith of Moses and his knowledge of God's promises. Moses replied to God's "outburst" by relaying God's own promises. Moses had to have known that God keeps His promises.

In both the cases of Abraham and Moses, God gave a command whose purpose was to test their faith in His promises. In both cases God did not follow through with His expressed intentions, because the purpose was actually to reiterate and vindicate the truthfulness and integrity of His word.

If God legitimately could have followed through with His expressed intentions to Moses, then God would have not kept His own promises. To believe that God could literally rescind unconditional promises based upon the actions of man can place doubt about other important promises of God. How can we be sure that God will truly keep His promise about salvation by grace through faith?! What if He gets fed up with the wickedness of the world and decides to break His promise and send everyone to hell?!

Don't want to let this post go unnoticed - very good.

 

[webdog]

...and pure speculation while showing faulty hermeneutics. You do not use one totally unrelated situation to interpret another.

 

[Skandelon]

Don't want to let this post go unnoticed - very good.

That could be a comparison I suppose, but suppose Abraham had a copy of one of our complex theological dissertations on the subject and didn't believe God when he commanded him to kill his son.

I can just imagine what Abraham might have said, "Oh, God, I just read Piper's book, so clearly you are speaking anthropomorphically and do not intend for me to really do what you just commanded for me to do, because that would be breaking your promise and you can't change your plans... "

I know, I'm being silly, but really that is what all this leads too. Having any type of meaningful conversation with God is next to impossible in this system, IMO. How do you talk to someone who you believe is "making" you say what you are about to say? It just doesn't work.

Could it be that God revealed himself in these terms because that is how he has chosen to relate to us? Should we really try to over intellectualize it? Maybe that is what Jesus was warning against when he reminded us to become like a child. Don't make this too complicated. (i.e. Follow the example of the Jews in writing the Mishnah and the Talmud)

 

[Andy T.]

I know, I'm being silly, but really that is what all this leads too. Having any type of meaningful conversation with God is next to impossible in this system, IMO. How do you talk to someone who you believe is "making" you say what you are about to say? It just doesn't work.

You're right - you are being silly (I'll be generous), because you've constructed yet another silly strawman, unless you are arguing against some Hyper-C/Hyper-Determinist. But I don't see any of those around here right now, so yes, your post is quite silly.

 

[Skandelon]

You're right - you are being silly (I'll be generous), because you've constructed yet another silly strawman, unless you are arguing against some Hyper-C/Hyper-Determinist. But I don't see any of those around here right now, so yes, your post is quite silly.

I put quotes around the word "making" because I understand that different Calvinists explain themselves in different ways and to different extremes. But even the Westminister Confession of Faith, one of the most accepted Reformed confessions teaches that God ordains whatsoever comes to pass, which would include every thought, motive and act of man, wouldn't it?

I addressed this in another thread some time back:

That is the position you seem to be defending, called compatiblism. I believe in contra-casual freedom..."A choice to act is free if it is an expression of an agent's categorical ability of the will to refrain or not refrain from the action (i.e., contra-causal freedom)."

It is my understanding that compatiblists (Calvinists) attempt to maintain that men are free in the since that they are "doing what they desire." It is the indeterminists contention that this is an insufficient explaination to maintain true freedom considering that compatibilists believe that even the desires and thoughts of men are decreed by God.

This is an important circularity in the claim by Calvinists that humans can be considered genuinely free so long as their actions are in accordance with their desires. Given your belief that all events and actions are decreed by God, then human desire (the very thing that compatibilists claim allows human choices to be considered free) must itself also be decreed. But if so, then there is nothing outside of or beyond God's decree on which human freedom might be based. Put differently, there is no such thing as what the human really wants to do in a given situation, considered somehow apart from God's desire in the matter (i.e., God's desire as to what the human agent will desire). In the compatibilist scheme, human desire is wholly derived from and wholly bound to the divine desire. God's decree encompasses everything, even the desires that underlie human choices.

This is a critical point, because it undercuts the plausibility of the compatibilist's argument that desire can be considered the basis for human freedom. When the compatibilist defines freedom in terms of desire (i.e., doing what one wants to do), this formulation initially appears plausible only because it tends to (subtly) evoke a sense of independence or ownership on the part of the human agent for his choices. That is, even though the compatibilist insists that God decisively conditions an agent's environment so as to guarantee the outcome of the agent's choices, we can nonetheless envision God's action in doing so as being compatible with human freedom so long as the human agent in question has the opportunity to interact with his conditioned environment as an independent agent, possessing his own desires and thus owning his choices in relation to that environment. But once we recognize (as we must within the larger deterministic framework encompassing compatibilism) that those very desires of the agent are equally part of the environment that God causally determines, then the line between environment and agent becomes blurred if not completely lost. The human agent no longer can be seen as owning his own choices, for the desires determining those choices are in no significant sense independent of God's decree. For this reason, human desire within the compatibilist framework forms an insufficient basis on which to establish the integrity of human freedom (and from this the legitimacy of human culpability for sin).

 

[Marcia]

Again, you are telling God how and how He cannot act / react in time. I see nothing from Scripture that an incarnated God does not know everything, and only in this "mode" that can happen. That is an argument from silence.

I am not telling God anything - He is telling us. If God knows everything, and I assume you agree with that, right? -- then how can God "react" to something? I disagree that God changes course in response to prayer, because how can he change course if he knows about the prayer in advance? Then that is not changing course.

 

[Skandelon]

I am not telling God anything - He is telling us. If God knows everything, and I assume you agree with that, right? -- then how can God "react" to something? I disagree that God changes course in response to prayer, because how can he change course if he knows about the prayer in advance? Then that is not changing course.

So, if someone for the very first time walked up to you and told you this story verbatim, what would you conclude?

EX 32:
8 They have quickly turned from the way I commanded them; they have made for themselves an image of a calf. They have bowed down to it, sacrificed to it, and said, 'Israel, this is your God, who brought you up from the land of Egypt.' " 9 The Lord also said to Moses: "I have seen this people, and they are indeed a stiff-necked people. 10 Now leave Me alone, so that My anger can burn against them and I can destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation." 11 But Moses interceded with the Lord his God: "Lord, why does Your anger burn against Your people You brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and a strong hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians say, 'He brought them out with an evil intent to kill them in the mountains and wipe them off the face of the earth'? Turn from Your great anger and change Your mind about this disaster [planned] for Your people. 13 Remember that You swore to Your servants Abraham, Isaac, and Israel by Yourself and declared to them, 'I will make your offspring as numerous as the stars of the sky and will give your offspring all this land that I have promised, and they will inherit [it] forever.' " 14 So the Lord changed His mind about the disaster He said He would bring on His people.

 

[olegig]

Can God change His mind?
Yes or no? Why?

Here are a few verses that I feel should be considered when one is trying to get a handle on the mind of God.

Jeremiah 7:31 (King James Version)
31And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart.


Jeremiah 19:5 (King James Version)
5They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind:

Jeremiah 32:35 (King James Version)
35And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.

 

[olegig]

I am not telling God anything - He is telling us. If God knows everything, and I assume you agree with that, right? -- then how can God "react" to something? I disagree that God changes course in response to prayer, because how can he change course if he knows about the prayer in advance? Then that is not changing course.

......then how can God "react" to something?.....

Please read the account of David in 1Sam 23:10ff.
There one will find David asking God if Saul will come down on him and also asking if the men of Keilah will help Saul.
God's answer is yes, Saul will come down and the men of Keilah will help him.
But did it happen, no, David survived.
Was the whole outcome influenced by the action of men? yes

Truly God knows everything; but that does not limit God to only knowing what is going to happen, for God also knows what would have happened if man had taken a different course.

But through it all, God is so great He can still get done what He wants done in spite of the choices and actions of man.

I like to think of it this way:
You are in a chess match with God. Whom do you think will win???? God no doubt. Why?
Perhaps it is because God not only knows each move you will make in advance; but He also knows each move you could have made.
Therefore it matters not what move is made, God will always know how to counter the move to obtain the end result of His desire.
But all the while in the chess match, God does not instruct or control the choice of the move of the man.

God is much greater than a ruler who has His will carried out simply because He ruled it to be so.
God's plan will come about no matter what choice or direction is taken by man.

 

[Andy T.]

I put quotes around the word "making" because I understand that different Calvinists explain themselves in different ways and to different extremes. But even the Westminister Confession of Faith, one of the most accepted Reformed confessions teaches that God ordains whatsoever comes to pass, which would include every thought, motive and act of man, wouldn't it?

I addressed this in another thread some time back:

Wow, that's a whole lot of philosophizing in yer post there - something I've been told we shouldn't try to do.

Anyways, I don't equate ordaining or decreeing as the same as "making." God doesn't make people sin, He allows them to. And in His allowance of sin, He ordains it to occur - otherwise, He would stop it from happening.

 

[TCGreek]

So what of open theism, then?

 

[Robert Snow]

Probably not in the way we change our mind. He is God. But, I'm simply reading the narrative and telling you what it says. If the author of scripture doesn't have a problem saying that God changed his mind, why should I?

This is one of the problems with Calvinism, at least five-point Calvinism. We cannot take Scripture at what is says, we must change it to fit into our doctrine.

If the Scripture says God changed His mind, then God changed His mind!

 

[RAdam]

This is one of the problems with Calvinism, at least five-point Calvinism. We cannot take Scripture at what is says, we must change it to fit into our doctrine.

If the Scripture says God changed His mind, then God changed His mind!

You mean like the text that says we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son? Or perhaps the text where Jesus says He came into the world to do His Father's will, which was that all of which the Father had given Him, none would be lost? Or maybe you have in mind where it says that those Jesus died for would be justified? Yep, non-cals never have to change scripture to fit their doctrine.

 

[Marcia]

......then how can God "react" to something?.....
Please read the account of David in 1Sam 23:10ff.
There one will find David asking God if Saul will come down on him and also asking if the men of Keilah will help Saul.
God's answer is yes, Saul will come down and the men of Keilah will help him.
But did it happen, no, David survived.
Was the whole outcome influenced by the action of men? yes

But did God know this would happen? Yes, He did. Does this show God changed his mind? No. Certainly, God knew that David's men would surrender him, and told David, so he fled.

Truly God knows everything; but that does not limit God to only knowing what is going to happen, for God also knows what would have happened if man had taken a different course.

I agree; is this the Middle Knowledge of God? But I still say God knows what men will decide. I am not sure if you agree with that or not.

I like to think of it this way:
You are in a chess match with God. Whom do you think will win???? God no doubt. Why?
Perhaps it is because God not only knows each move you will make in advance; but He also knows each move you could have made.
Therefore it matters not what move is made, God will always know how to counter the move to obtain the end result of His desire.
But all the while in the chess match, God does not instruct or control the choice of the move of the man.

And God doesn't change his mind. I don't see how this has to do with God changing his mind. God is not influenced by anyone; if He were, he would not be God.

 

[Marcia]

So what of open theism, then?

Open theism is considered a heresy by some theologians. I think if it isn't, it's close.

Open theists say that God only knows the "future that can be known;" i.e., God does not know what you will have for lunch next Tuesday if you don't know.

 

[webdog]

I am not telling God anything - He is telling us. If God knows everything, and I assume you agree with that, right? -- then how can God "react" to something? I disagree that God changes course in response to prayer, because how can he change course if he knows about the prayer in advance? Then that is not changing course.

You are asking me "how", and my I answer is "I don't know". All I know is what the Bible says, and there is a clear tension found in numerous places.

 

[Skandelon]

Wow, that's a whole lot of philosophizing in yer post there - something I've been told we shouldn't try to do.

Anyways, I don't equate ordaining or decreeing as the same as "making." God doesn't make people sin, He allows them to. And in His allowance of sin, He ordains it to occur - otherwise, He would stop it from happening.

So you believe in free will? (defined: man could have done otherwise than what he ends up doing?)