Does God react, relent or change in response to man?

[Skandelon]

We have to remember that God is spirit and not a person just like us. God doesn't change. We change. We see places where God "repented" but do you really thing God changed his mind? Did he really have all intentions to do one thing and decided to do another? this is where omniscience come into play. In our eyes, God is repenting. This is how he expresses it to us. But to Him, He was planning to do that all along..

But those passages never make that qualification. You are just speculating based upon what other passages say and how you apply them to define God within your limited framework.

In other words, people years ago, before the systemization of scripture and creation of all the "isms" would have simply read these texts as they are. As you say, "that is how he expresses it to us," so why not simply accept what he has expressed? Clearly, we have the ability to comprehend a simple explanation in the text saying, "God didn't really relent, he just expressed himself as relenting because he didn't think you would understand a more Calvinistic expression."

Maybe God would actually like us to relate to Him as if He is reacting and responding? Otherwise, wouldn't he have expressed himself as not reacting and responding to Moses? Maybe he really doesn't react and respond, but clearly he didn't have a problem with people reading these texts and walking away thinking that He does and that must mean something.

Think about it. Even Jesus prayed asking God to let the cup pass from him and to let God will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Certainly Jesus, of all people, didn't need to say these things knowing what he knew about himself and his father. I just think we are missing something when we allow our doctrinal constructs limit and confine our communion with Him and I'm including Arminian constructs in that statement.

 

[jbh28]

But those passages never make that qualification. You are just speculating based upon what other passages say and how you apply them to define God within your limited framework.

Either I'm right, or God is a changing God. Your pick. I'm not the one limiting God. I'm saying that while to us it appears as though God changes his mind, in reality he doesn't.

Maybe God would actually like us to relate to Him as if He is reacting and responding?

That's the point. That's exactly what he is doing.

Think about it. Even Jesus prayed asking God to let the cup pass from him and to let God will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Certainly Jesus, of all people, didn't need to say these things knowing what he knew about himself and his father. I just think we are missing something when we allow our doctrinal constructs limit and confine our communion with Him and I'm including Arminian constructs in that statement.

Let me ask you this, do you really thing Jesus thought that the Father would not let him die?

I'm not limiting God in any way. God is showing this to relate to us so we can understand the best we can. God is unchanging. God knows all things. (He knew he would "change his mind" in other words.) That's not really changing your mind.

 

[Robert Snow]

We also have God changing His mind concerning Hezekiah after Isaiah told him he was going to die. God gave him fifteen extra years.

 

[Tom Butler]

Maybe we can understand it this way:
When we repent, we change our will.

When God repents, he wills a change.

jbh28 is onto something at the end of his post #22. An omniscient God knows all. And an immutable God doesn't change. So God must know all future events and how he will act in the midst of those events.

We can't deal with all the scriptures Skandelon cited in the OP, but let's take one:

Jeremiah 18:7-10:
"If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it. And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it."

Did God say those words, not knowing which nations would do evil in his sight? Did he say those words not knowing which nations would turn from their evil ways. Nope.

I do think there is also a sense in which God is speaking anthromorphically, and is stating an eternal principle: Sin and you'll pay. Turn from sin and I'll bless you.

Otherwise, one must interpret that passage loosely this way. God says, I'm gonna bust that nation in the chops, I'm gonna tear it to pieces. Uh-oh, hold on. They're repenting. They're turning from sin.

(God says) I didn't see that coming, so never mind.

That's a silly example, you say. Yep, probably so. But we have to deal with a clear scripture such as I Sam 15:29:

And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.

And James 1:27

Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.

One principle of hermeneutics is, where you have clear, unequivocal scripture, other passages on the same subject must be interpreted in the light of those clear passages.

So any scripture which speaks of God repenting, relenting or changing his mind must be interpreted in the light of scriptures which say he doesn't repent, relent or change his mind.

 

[Iconoclast]

Iconoclast, whether you realize it or not by cutting and pasting this creed you are only supporting the point I was attempting to make.

None of these statements or verses undo the verses I presented, they simply reveal MORE of God. By suggesting that one part of His revelation somehow undoes another part presumes an element of paradox and mystery is not intended. And it could keep us from relating to God in the way Moses and some others clearly did.

No one has to undo any verses,They just need to be understood in the light of everything the bible says,so that no verse of scripture contradicts a clearer scripture....for example;

6For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

We are told...by God....I change not. That is a clear and wonderful statement.For anyone to question this statement would be very ungodly
along the lines of.......hath God said?
this nonsense about "paradox" or "mystery" is a diversion.You have an agenda to undermine biblical truth as you advertise in bright red letters on your signature.
You seem to take it as a light thing to discuss the things of God.This is no game.
If someone does not understand something and is questioning to learn that is fine. To try and undermine bible truth with human philosophy is not wise.

 

[quantumfaith]

No one has to undo any verses,They just need to be understood in the light of everything the bible says,so that no verse of scripture contradicts a clearer scripture....for example;

We are told...by God....I change not. That is a clear and wonderful statement.For anyone to question this statement would be very ungodly
along the lines of.......hath God said?
this nonsense about "paradox" or "mystery" is a diversion.You have an agenda to undermine biblical truth as you advertise in bright red letters on your signature.
You seem to take it as a light thing to discuss the things of God.This is no game.
If someone does not understand something and is questioning to learn that is fine. To try and undermine bible truth with human philosophy is not wise.

Patently absurd.
Absurdity, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion. (Bierce)

 

[quantumfaith]

Maybe we can understand it this way:
When we repent, we change our will.

When God repents, he wills a change.

jbh28 is onto something at the end of his post #22. An omniscient God knows all. And an immutable God doesn't change. So God must know all future events and how he will act in the midst of those events.

We can't deal with all the scriptures Skandelon cited in the OP, but let's take one:

Did God say those words, not knowing which nations would do evil in his sight? Did he say those words not knowing which nations would turn from their evil ways. Nope.

I do think there is also a sense in which God is speaking anthromorphically, and is stating an eternal principle: Sin and you'll pay. Turn from sin and I'll bless you.

Otherwise, one must interpret that passage loosely this way. God says, I'm gonna bust that nation in the chops, I'm gonna tear it to pieces. Uh-oh, hold on. They're repenting. They're turning from sin.

(God says) I didn't see that coming, so never mind.

That's a silly example, you say. Yep, probably so. But we have to deal with a clear scripture such as I Sam 15:29:
And James 1:27One principle of hermeneutics is, where you have clear, unequivocal scripture, other passages on the same subject must be interpreted in the light of those clear passages.

So any scripture which speaks of God repenting, relenting or changing his mind must be interpreted in the light of scriptures which say he doesn't repent, relent or change his mind.

Nice! :thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

Perhaps, these "instances" where God "repents or relents" is meant to teach us something about the God we worship.

He is a God that does convenant with his people.
He is a God will do what He says He will do.
He is God desiring to hear from and respond to His people.
He is a God, despite the path or decision that we take, will most certainly accomplish whatsoever He desires.

 

[Alcott]

"Maybe God would actually like us to relate to Him as if He is reacting and responding?"

That's the point. That's exactly what he is doing.

God wants us to relate to him as if he is....? Oh, man, does that have a lot of results! Just about any theology can work with that, if God isn't really doing/done/going to do what he tells us.

 

[jbh28]

"Maybe God would actually like us to relate to Him as if He is reacting and responding?"



God wants us to relate to him as if he is....? Oh, man, does that have a lot of results! Just about any theology can work with that, if God isn't really doing/done/going to do what he tells us.

That's not even close to what I meant by that. Tom did a great job explaining, so I don't feel any need to do it again.

 

[HankD]

No one has to undo any verses,They just need to be understood in the light of everything the bible says,so that no verse of scripture contradicts a clearer scripture....for example;

We are told...by God....I change not. That is a clear and wonderful statement.For anyone to question this statement would be very ungodly
along the lines of.......hath God said?
this nonsense about "paradox" or "mystery" is a diversion.You have an agenda to undermine biblical truth as you advertise in bright red letters on your signature.
You seem to take it as a light thing to discuss the things of God.This is no game.
If someone does not understand something and is questioning to learn that is fine. To try and undermine bible truth with human philosophy is not wise.

Iconoclast, IMO, I don't think its fair to use the words of the serpent in your ad hominem.

The same could be done with this passage:

Genesis 6
6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air;for it repenteth me that I have made them.​

Hath God said " it repenteth me that I have made them"?

Did He or did He not say this and what did He mean by it?

Did He feel pain and/or was He actually grieved?

In the beginning it was "very good", later He was grieved.

In other passages we are told God's wrath was kindled and later subsided (Ninevah).

People use the words "paradox" or "mystery" as their way of coping with what they don't understand.

Franky, FWIW, I presently stand with them.

John 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.​

We are told "grieve not the Holy Spirit".

The plain understanding without a verbal tap-dance is that we have the ability to grieve Almighty God, to "cause" His pleasure with His children to "change" to grief.


HankD

 

[menageriekeeper]

Two things:

What I'm saying is that God doesn't change for man. He is the same. He isn't dependent on man. He doesn't change because of man.

Why would God being willing and able to respond to the acts of man, make Him dependent on man? I don't follow.

So any scripture which speaks of God repenting, relenting or changing his mind must be interpreted in the light of scriptures which say he doesn't repent, relent or change his mind.

Wthout the constructs of Calvin or Arminius to distract us, how do you determine the first (in bue) must be interpreted in the light of the second? Why not interpret the second in light of the first? Does it give a different interpretation? (in my view it does), Then what? Do we have a contradiction in scripture? Do we disregard one interpretation in preference to the other? Or do we go back and use other scriptures to solve the apparent delimma?

See, I can look at the scriptures posted and see that God can respond to me as an individual, to my country as a seperate entity from the rest of the world and yet bring His own purposes about while allowing me/my country that we desire. How much greater a God that can see to the details without changing the over all picture?

 

[webdog]

We also have God changing His mind concerning Hezekiah after Isaiah told him he was going to die. God gave him fifteen extra years.

Exactly. Also, we know this because the Bible states God "added" 15 years to his life, so these were additional years, not part of the lifespan God intended when He stated Hezekiah WAS going to die. The reformers have the issue of stating when God decrees something, it will come to pass. Not the case here as God decreed Hez WAS going to die...and then...ADDED 15 years to his life AFTER hearing his prayer (God's words, not mine)

 

[webdog]

Iconoclast, IMO, I don't think its fair to use the words of the serpent in your ad hominem.

The same could be done with this passage:

Genesis 6
6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air;for it repenteth me that I have made them.​

Hath God said " it repenteth me that I have made them"?

Did He or did He not say this and what did He mean by it?

Did He feel pain and/or was He actually grieved?

In the beginning it was "very good", later He was grieved.

In other passages we are told God's wrath was kindled and later subsided (Ninevah).

People use the words "paradox" or "mystery" as their way of coping with what they don't understand.

Franky, FWIW, I presently stand with them.

John 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.​

We are told "grieve not the Holy Spirit".

The plain understanding without a verbal tap-dance is that we have the ability to grieve Almighty God, to "cause" His pleasure with His children to "change" to grief.


HankD

Great post. Nothing here that can be refuted, IMO. I would hope Iconoclast and others would not be so quick to attack their opponents as "undermining biblical truth".

 

[jbh28]

Exactly. Also, we know this because the Bible states God "added" 15 years to his life, so these were additional years, not part of the lifespan God intended when He stated Hezekiah WAS going to die. The reformers have the issue of stating when God decrees something, it will come to pass. Not the case here as God decreed Hez WAS going to die...and then...ADDED 15 years to his life AFTER hearing his prayer (God's words, not mine)

Did God know about the 15 additional years before?

 

[quantumfaith]

Did God know about the 15 additional years before?

I would say "Of course" or else he is not omniscient.

 

[jbh28]

I would say "Of course" or else he is not omniscient.

Right. so let's look at it the best we can.

We have God who gives 15 additional years. We agree that God knew of the additional years.

2 Kings 20:1
"In those days Hezekiah became sick and was at the point of death. And Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz came to him and said to him, "Thus says the LORD, 'Set your house in order, for you shall die; you shall not recover.'" "​

Isaiah tells Hezekiah a message from God. Isaiah tells Hezekiah that he is going to die. This isn't Isaiah opinion but a direct message from God.


Then Hezekiah prays to the Lord...

2 Kings 20:2-3
"Then Hezekiah turned his face to the wall and prayed to the LORD, saying, "Now, O LORD, please remember how I have walked before you in faithfulness and with a whole heart, and have done what is good in your sight." And Hezekiah wept bitterly."​

Then the Lord responds...

2 Kings 20:4-6
"And before Isaiah had gone out of the middle court, the word of the LORD came to him: "Turn back, and say to Hezekiah the leader of my people, Thus says the LORD, the God of David your father: I have heard your prayer; I have seen your tears. Behold, I will heal you. On the third day you shall go up to the house of the LORD, and I will add fifteen years to your life. I will deliver you and this city out of the hand of the king of Assyria, and I will defend this city for my own sake and for my servant David's sake.""​

So we have the Lord telling Hezekiah that he is going to die. Then after Hezekiah's prayer, the Lord adds 15 years.

So, did the Lord "change his mind"? Yes and no. Did God always know that these additional 15 years would be there? Of course he did. In that sense, God didn't change his mind. He always knew it.

To be honest, it's difficult to understand. On one hand we have what looks like God changed his mind. But then on the other hand, if we are going to agree that He already knew that, did He really "change his mind"?

I Samuel 15:29
"Also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind."​

Found this statement from CARM and thought it was well stated.

"...the answer is found in looking at the problem from two perspectives. From the eternal perspective, God does not change His mind since He knew from all eternity what the ultimate decision would be. From the temporal perspective (relative to us), God changes His mind in response to the prayers and pleading of His people."​

- http://carm.org/2-kings-201-6-you-shall-die-and-not-livei-will-add-15-years-your

 

[Skandelon]

Either I'm right, or God is a changing God. Your pick.

False Dichotomy. God's nature doesn't change, but that has nothing to do which the way in which God chose to express himself through scripture.

I'm not the one limiting God. I'm saying that while to us it appears as though God changes his mind, in reality he doesn't.

And you don't think it limits God to suggest that he is somehow unable to react and respond to his creation just because of his other divine attributes? Why not just accept both to be true and stop trying to limit him to one way or the other. How am I limiting God when I'm the one saying God is both imminent and transcendent. He is both sovereign and personal. He is both all knowing and one who weeps with us when a friend dies, where as you think that because he is "THIS" that he couldn't possibly be "THAT" because it doesn't line up with your man made logical construct. Despite the fact that the clear implication of these passages (along with many others) makes no apology for presenting God as one who relents, adapts, responds and reacts.

That's the point. That's exactly what he is doing. Let me ask you this, do you really thing Jesus thought that the Father would not let him die?

I don't pretend to know what he was thinking. We only know what he prayed and what the scripture recorded.

 

[jbh28]

False Dichotomy. God's nature doesn't change, but that has nothing to do which the way in which God chose to express himself through scripture.

It's not a false dichotomy. I'm not arguing that God can't express himself a certain way. Read what I have been writing.

And you don't think it limits God to suggest that he is somehow unable to react and respond to his creation just because of his other divine attributes? Why not just accept both to be true and stop trying to limit him to one way or the other. How am I limiting God when I'm the one saying God is both imminent and transcendent. He is both sovereign and personal. He is both all knowing and one who weeps with us when a friend dies, where as you think that because he is "THIS" that he couldn't possibly be "THAT" because it doesn't line up with your man made logical construct. Despite the fact that the clear implication of these passages (along with many others) makes no apology for presenting God as one who relents, adapts, responds and reacts.

I don't pretend to know what he was thinking. We only know what he prayed and what the scripture recorded.

Read what I wrote today. You wouldn't have needed this response.

 

[Skandelon]

So any scripture which speaks of God repenting, relenting or changing his mind must be interpreted in the light of scriptures which say he doesn't repent, relent or change his mind.

Or you accept that both revealed truths must be accepted but not necessarily fully understood or explained.

Maybe some verses mean that God's nature and attributes don't change, while he has chosen to respond and react imminently within time and space with his creation. That certainly seems like a plausible explanation.

 

[Skandelon]

It's not a false dichotomy.

A false dichotomy is when only two options are presented, but another viable option is not. You said, "Either I'm right, or God is a changing God," which is a prime example of a false dichotomy.

I'm not arguing that God can't express himself a certain way. Read what I have been writing.

I haven't read all your posts, but in the one you addressed to me you said, "I'm saying that while to us it appears as though God changes his mind, in reality he doesn't." Which to me suggests that you think God expresses himself incompletely, or in such a way that doesn't reveal reality.

Read what I wrote today. You wouldn't have needed this response.

Are you saying you have changed? I'll go back and see what I've missed. Thanks