Does God Change His Mind? Another Calvinist Conundrum

[jonathanD]

Ought implies can is Kantian...not biblical.

 

[DrJamesAch]

What ICON has done here is NO different than what Dr. Ach does in every thread. He takes his opponents belief to what HE considers to be its logical end...thus, open theism in the case of the Arminian leaning IFB. Is what ICON posted really worse than the good doctor claiming Calvinists don't believe the lost need to repent?

What I have done is take statements directly from the mouth of John Calvin, JI Packer, John Piper, et al, and the Confessions and then shown the implications of what that means. Calvinists have a hard time dealing with implications that they perceive to be accusations against their premise.

Let me show you the difference.

PREMISE: God has before time determined all things whatsover that come to pass (Westminster Confession III)

IMPLICATION: God is the author of sin since sin is a "whatsoever".

Now this is where the Calvinist gets confused.

Calvinist: "We never SAID [PREMISE] that God is the author of sin, you are claiming something we have never said".

This is exactly how Calvinist debate tactics work. They accuse the opponent of stating that the IMPLICATIONS are the PREMISE, and since the Calvinists don't like or even want to deal with the implications of their beliefs, they accuse their opponents of misrepresentation.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Ought implies can is Kantian...not biblical.

Wow, that is a very huge leap from how Immanuel Kant described ought to how you have used it here. There's a whole lot more to the Kantian view of the "ought" that has absolutely nothing to do with your accusation.

 

[jonathanD]

What I have done is take statements directly from the mouth of John Calvin, JI Packer, John Piper, et al, and the Confessions and then shown the implications of what that means. Calvinists have a hard time dealing with implications that they perceive to be accusations against their premise.

Let me show you the difference.

PREMISE: God has before time determined all things whatsover that come to pass (Westminster Confession III)

IMPLICATION: God is the author of sin since sin is a "whatsoever".

Now this is where the Calvinist gets confused.

Calvinist: "We never SAID [PREMISE] that God is the author of sin, you are claiming something we have never said".

This is exactly how Calvinist debate tactics work. They accuse the opponent of stating that the IMPLICATIONS are the PREMISE, and since the Calvinists don't like or even want to deal with the implications of their beliefs, they accuse their opponents of misrepresentation.

The difference is, YOU are claiming the implications as the stated belief. That is dishonest.

 

[DrJamesAch]

The difference is, YOU are claiming the implications as the stated belief. That is dishonest.

You just did it. I just showed you a clear example of a premise and a conclusion. I am entitled to state what I believe the conclusion is. I can only be accused of dishonesty if I alter the PREMISE.

What you just accused me of is doing exactly what I just said the Calvinists do. I did not claim the implications AS the STATED BELIEF. Read the example again. The stated belief (PREMISE) is a DIRECT QUOTE from the Westminster Confession. My conclusion was just that..a conclusion, and a conclusion that shows the implication of the stated belief. What you did was accuse me of making the stated belief the premise, and thus you just did exactly the issue that I have just shown is a Calvinist debate tactic.

Congratulations, you prove my point.

 

[jonathanD]

You just did it. I just showed you a clear example of a premise and a conclusion. I am entitled to state what I believe the conclusion is. I can only be accused of dishonesty if I alter the PREMISE.

What you just accused me of is doing exactly what I just said the Calvinists do. I did not claim the implications AS the STATED BELIEF. Read the example again. The stated belief (PREMISE) is a DIRECT QUOTE from the Westminster Confession. My conclusion was just that..a conclusion, and a conclusion that shows the implication of the stated belief. What you did was accuse me of making the stated belief the premise, and thus you just did exactly the issue that I have just shown is a Calvinist debate tactic.

Congratulations, you prove my point.

I'm not talking about your example Ach. I'm talking about your statement that Calvinists do not believe in repentance. Do you deny that you said it? Your taking of liberty in the premise department is also quite clear to anyone who is paying attention. When you're called on it, you typically accuse the person of evading.

It makes no matter to me, I have a pretty good grasp of your techniques. Your point is that Calvinists are inconsistent or illogical in your opinion. That's fine. Saying that Calvinists do not believe in repentance is, at best, careless. At worst it is lying to further your anti-calvinists evangelistic crusade.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I'm not talking about your example Ach. I'm talking about your statement that Calvinists do not believe in repentance. Do you deny that you said it? Your taking of liberty in the premise department is also quite clear to anyone who is paying attention. When you're called on it, you typically accuse the person of evading.

It makes no matter to me, I have a pretty good grasp of your techniques. Your point is that Calvinists are inconsistent or illogical in your opinion. That's fine. Saying that Calvinists do not believe in repentance is, at best, careless. At worst it is lying to further your anti-calvinists evangelistic crusade.

Personally Jonathan, I dont know why you even bother. Already evident to anyone with eyes.

 

[Iconoclast]

quantumfaith

To this point in the thread....your statement here ICON is absolutely false. Nothing of the sort has been stated (at least to the point of your comment). Either you are completely ignorant or you purposely creating your own scenario.

Do you think God who is all knowing has to...."change His mind"? Seriously. You change your mind when you get more information or learn things
The biblical God does not need to do this ever at anytime.

20 And the Lord said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;

21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.

QF....do you believe an all knowing God really had to go down and see??? he did not know??? the words say it....but do you think that is what is happening????

9 And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?

Do you think God did not know where Adam was??? really?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

quantumfaith



Do you think God who is all knowing has to...."change His mind"? Seriously. You change your mind when you get more information or learn things
The biblical God does not need to do this ever at anytime.

I quite agree....again, providing human characteristics to an all knowing & almighty God. Good point :thumbs:

 

[Iconoclast]

Inspector Javert:

Correct. No one will support these lame statements Icon is making. No one has suggested these heretical ideas he's mentioned, nor will anyone support them.

16 Do not err, my beloved brethren.

17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

The God I worship does not change his mind.He does not need to.

 

[quantumfaith]

quantumfaith



Do you think God who is all knowing has to...."change His mind"? Seriously. You change your mind when you get more information or learn things
The biblical God does not need to do this ever at anytime.



QF....do you believe an all knowing God really had to go down and see??? he did not know??? the words say it....but do you think that is what is happening????




Do you think God did not know where Adam was??? really?

Icon, I believe the God of scripture will indeed change his course of action (change his mind), particularly in response to the prayers, actions and response of His people.

None of this , or what has been said thus far in ANY WAY challenges the omniscience of God..... that was YOUR implication.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Do you think God who is all knowing has to...."change His mind"?

Inspector Javert:
The God I worship does not change his mind.He does not need to.

Who is talking about "NEED"? You are correct....The Biblical God does not NEED to do anything, including changing his mind. But who says he "NEEDS" to? That's not the position anyone here is taking.

Presumably....he didn't NEED to create you or save you either, but he did. He certainly didn't NEED to save me or love me, but he chose to. He's God.....he's allowed to do it if he wants to, and if he chooses to relate to his creation in such a way that he might intend on something, and then in response to creaturely action subsequently alter his course of action, than that is his prerogative.

That's what the Scriptures state and quite un-equivocally he does. I didn't write them, but the only way to insist that he does not change his mind is to blatantly ignore a myriad of Scriptures which clearly state that that is what he does.

To claim he doesn't is to subject those (quite numerous) passages to Theological pre-suppositions and force-fit them onto a pre-conceived system. We don't have the right to do that. We must force-fit our Theology TO those clear passages. It's not easy to do, I grant you, but if we teach those passages as God simply saying something that he doesn't "really mean", than frankly we a proving to ourselves that we don't truly follow "Sola-Scriptura" at all but rather...."Sola-Theology"-(mix in certain acceptable and pre-screened Scriptures.)

 

[Benjamin]

"Sola-Theology"-(mix in certain acceptable and pre-screened Scriptures.)

Great reasoning topped off by the opportunity to learn new phrase on this board everyday!

:thumbs:

 

[quantumfaith]

Who is talking about "NEED"? You are correct....The Biblical God does not NEED to do anything, including changing his mind. But who says he "NEEDS" to? That's not the position anyone here is taking.

Presumably....he didn't NEED to create you or save you either, but he did. He certainly didn't NEED to save me or love me, but he chose to. He's God.....he's allowed to do it if he wants to, and if he chooses to relate to his creation in such a way that he might intend on something, and then in response to creaturely action subsequently alter his course of action, than that is his prerogative.

That's what the Scriptures state and quite un-equivocally he does. I didn't write them, but the only way to insist that he does not change his mind is to blatantly ignore a myriad of Scriptures which clearly state that that is what he does.

To claim he doesn't is to subject those (quite numerous) passages to Theological pre-suppositions and force-fit them onto a pre-conceived system. We don't have the right to do that. We must force-fit our Theology TO those clear passages. It's not easy to do, I grant you, but if we teach those passages as God simply saying something that he doesn't "really mean", than frankly we a proving to ourselves that we don't truly follow "Sola-Scriptura" at all but rather...."Sola-Theology"-(mix in certain acceptable and pre-screened Scriptures.)

Asiety, (sp ?) something that escapes many on this board.

 

[Winman]

A perfect example of interpreting scripture through the filter of your particular theology. The scriptures clearly show God changed his mind at times, as when he gave Hezekiah an additional 15 years to live, but Icon will refuse to believe it.

2 Kng 20:1 In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death. And the prophet Isaiah the son of Amoz came to him, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Set thine house in order; for thou shalt die, and not live.
2 Then he turned his face to the wall, and prayed unto the LORD, saying,
3 I beseech thee, O LORD, remember now how I have walked before thee in truth and with a perfect heart, and have done that which is good in thy sight. And Hezekiah wept sore.
4 And it came to pass, afore Isaiah was gone out into the middle court, that the word of the LORD came to him, saying,
5 Turn again, and tell Hezekiah the captain of my people, Thus saith the LORD, the God of David thy father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: behold, I will heal thee: on the third day thou shalt go up unto the house of the LORD.
6 And I will add unto thy days fifteen years; and I will deliver thee and this city out of the hand of the king of Assyria; and I will defend this city for mine own sake, and for my servant David's sake.

If God had always determined that Hezekiah would be healed of this sickness, then it could not be said that God would ADD fifteen years unto his days.

 

[jonathanD]

If God had always determined that Hezekiah would be healed of this sickness, then it could not be said that God would ADD fifteen years unto his days.

Sure it could. Because you've humbled yourself (the determined end of the process), I've granted you 15 additional years. Warning passages are often the means to the desired end. God controls both, but they are not to be equated.

 

[Winman]

Sure it could. Because you've humbled yourself (the determined end of the process), I've granted you 15 additional years. Warning passages are often the means to the desired end. God controls both, but they are not to be equated.

You Calvinists are past desperate. :laugh:

 

[jonathanD]

You Calvinists are past desperate. :laugh:

I'm guessing that's the Winman version of "nuh-uh!"

 

[jbh28]

Icon, I believe the God of scripture will indeed change his course of action (change his mind), particularly in response to the prayers, actions and response of His people.

None of this , or what has been said thus far in ANY WAY challenges the omniscience of God..... that was YOUR implication.

Numbers 23:19 says that God doesn't change his mind. we do have passages where God changed his course of action(Genesis 6:6, Jonah 3:10, Exodus 32:14, 2 Kings 20:1)

From our perspective it does look as if God changed his mind. As was stated, God is omniscient. God knows his plan and sticks to it. The latest example of 2 Kings shows God changing the number of lives. Did God know that he was going to add the 15 years in verse 1? Of course He did. He's omniscient. He's sovereign. His plan the whole time was to add 15 years to Hezekiah's life. It was always in God's plan that Isaiah would ask for more years and God would grant it. God is not changing his mind(Numbers 23:19) but doing exactly as he planned the whole time.

Suppose a teacher decides to award a student one point on the final exam if they ask for it. Now, the teacher tells the student that he has an 89 on his exam as therefore has a B+. The student comes and asks for the one point to get the A+. The teacher says yes. Did the teacher change his mind? No, it was always in his plan.

 

[saturneptune]

I'll make this short and sweet. The Calvinists contend that God does not ever "change His mind" so to speak, regardless of all the OT passages that show that He does. But here's a conundrum for the Calvinist.

The Calvinists and the Confession teach that God determines all things whatsoever come to pass. When confronted with the fact that their theology results in a position that says God doesn't love everybody, the Calvinist resorts to Matthew 5:45, that God sends rain on the just and the unjust, and THAT proves that God shows His love for the lost/unsaved.

However, there's a problem here. If God NEVER changes His mind, THEN HOW CAN HE LOVE THE SINNER ONE MOMENT BUT HATE HIM THE NEXT??

Any honest Calvinist (like Arthur Pink) will simply admit that God does not love the sinner. God only loves the elect. Yet in attempting to explain this apparent cruelty to an unbeliever, they will give the above example of the rain on the just and unjust as evidence that there is at least one point where God shows His love for them.

But, IF GOD NEVER CHANGES HIS MIND, THEN HIS HATRED FOR THE SINNER WOULD BE CONSTANT AND CONSISTENT.

So the Calvinists can either admit that there are times when God changes something according to plan that He previously said otherwise (as in 1 Samuel 23:11-14) or the Calvinists should just all be honest and tell sinners that God doesn't love them. But of course, if they did that, they would lose membership and followers, so a Calvinist MUST maintain a dishonest presentation of the gospel in order to maintain credibility.

That is called a Catch 22 question about the Lord. It is designed to mock Christianity. Other examples are, "Can God create a rock too heavy for Him to lift?" or "Can God commit suicide?" Ridiculous