Does God really ever change His own mind?

[Iconoclast]

Is grief proper to God?
John Owen: "The apostle tells us that God is 'blessed forever,' Ro. 9:5; "He is the blessed and only Potentate,' 1 Tim. 6:15; "God all-sufficient, "Gen. 17:1. That which s inconsistent with absolute blessedness and all-sufficiency is not to be ascribed to God; to do so casts him down from his excellency. But he can be blessed, is he all-sufficient, who is tossed up and down with hope, joy, fear, sorrow, repentance, anger, and the like?" When we remove the figurative human passion, to which perfection of God does this analogy point?
John Calvin : "Certainly God is not sorrowful or sad; but remains forever like himself in his celestial and happy repose: yet, because it could not otherwise be known hw great is God's hatred and detestation of sin, therefore the Spirit accommodates himself to our capacity."
Matthew Henry : "This language does not imply passion or uneasiness in God (nothing can create disturbance to the Eternal Mind), but it expresses his just and holy displeasure against sin and sinners, against sin as odious to holiness and against sinners as obnoxious to his justice."

Again, the above is taken from part of a handout from last week's adult Sunday School class.

Wonderful post and so many solid quotes. This issue is not easily grasped by those who are given to philosophy, rather than able to correctly welcome biblical truth without contradiction.
They might have invented a god who is in the image and likeness of man, who has sinful passions, rather than the biblical God making man.
It is good to read solid biblical posts such as this, and MM , and Reformed.

 

[37818]

So the Father has never done anything directly?

If He did then there is no need for the Word (the Son) to be both with God and to be God. John 1:1-3. The Word being the sole agency of cause. John 5:18-19.

 

[Yeshua1]

Not in a temporal sense, no. Not in a linear time sense. In eternity past, with his exhaustive definite foreknowledge, outside of time, he does respond to things. Like the fall, for instance. This is why all of God's decisions can be traced back to eternity past.

Are you saying that God reacted after the Fall happened, so that he had no plan in mind until after that occurred then?

 

[Yeshua1]

Calminian, if you don't mind, can you explain what the terms mean? I can't follow the argument and that means most people can't.

God does not guess, nor make educated guesses, nor needs to gain any additional knowledge about any given situation, as He always knows all that can be known from eternity! he knows what will happen in future prophecy due to Him already pre arranging events in history and time to make sure always happens Just as He said...

 

[Yeshua1]

It's a term dubbed EDF which is basically in response to open theists who believe that, while God knows all possible futures, there are things still open and undetermined that He does not yet know. They would deny God has exhaustive precise knowledge of the actual future that will take place, since true free will decisions cannot be foreknown (so they claim).

yes, as they would argue that God had chosen to become part of time just as we now are, so He makes highly educated guesses, but not absolute ones, as waiting on history to fully unfold!

 

[Yeshua1]

I am safely returned from a church Bible Study. Thank you for your good wishes.

Amen! But if God's own words seem to contradict themselves, then the Analogy of faith requires that we do not set one word against another, but seek to reconcile them.
So when we rad, 'I the LORD do not change. Therefore you are not consumed, O sons of Jacob' (Malachi 3:6), we understand that it is the Lord's immutable purpose that keeps Him from destroying Israel, not His emotions surging up and down. So God's sparing of Israel in the Golden Calf incident in Exodus 32, though it was done through Moses' pleadings for the people (vs. 11-14), yet there was in fact no prospect of the Israelites actually being destroyed because God does not change. Likewise we read that 'Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever,' so we know that no one who was given to Him by the Father will ever be lost (John 6:39), even though it is necessary for them to repent and believe (John 6:40).

All God's purposes are ultimate. '....Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done, saying, "My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure,"............Indeed I have spoken it; I will also bring it to pass. I have purposed it; I shall also do it' (Isaiah 46:10-11).

Sounds like someone is trying to make sure human free will is still fully in play, but as you rightly point out to us, God alone is fully sovereign.

 

[Yeshua1]

No, that is what is called a non-sequitur.



Once again. Your claim - not mine. Hence you are required to prove your claim. I don't have to disprove it for it not to be true. I just simply asked questions.

Here are two to three questions:

1. Do you believe that God lies?
He cannot, as that would be against his very nature!
2. Do you believe that God's knowledge of the future is exhaustive?
Yes
3. If 2 is true, then what is your biblical reference for exhaustive knowledge as oppose to simply knowledge of the future.
God is alpha and omega, so is before all things, after all things, knows all things
Have the questions enraged you to the point that you're ready to burn me at the stake?

Why do the questions upset you so much?

Some things you might want to ponder.

1. Do you believe that God lies?
He cannot, as that would be against his very nature!
2. Do you believe that God's knowledge of the future is exhaustive?
Yes
3. If 2 is true, then what is your biblical reference for exhaustive knowledge as oppose to simply knowledge of the future.
God is alpha and omega, so is before all things, after all things, knows all things
Have the questions enraged you to the point that you're ready to burn me at the stake?

 

[Yeshua1]

If He did then there is no need for the Word (the Son) to be both with God and to be God. John 1:1-3. The Word being the sole agency of cause. John 5:18-19.

While the Son was here on earth with Abraham, was not the Father raining down judgment Himself upon Sodom?

 

[37818]

While the Son was here on earth with Abraham, was not the Father raining down judgment Himself upon Sodom?

That is an interpetation. Genesis 19:24. Some things to remember. There is only one LORD God. That was a finite and temporal act. The Son of God according to John 1:3 and John 1:18 should, as I unberstand, to be God's sole cause of all caused things. Since God is unchangeable the Son at not time ceased to be also the very LORD God, John 3:13, KJV, Revelation 1:17-18, Isaiah 44:6.

 

[Yeshua1]

That is an interpetation. Genesis 19:24. Some things to remember. There is only one LORD God. That was a finite and temporal act. The Son of God according to John 1:3 and John 1:18 should, as I unberstand, to be God's sole cause of all caused things. Since God is unchangeable the Son at not time ceased to be also the very LORD God, John 3:13, KJV, Revelation 1:17-18, Isaiah 44:6.

The Father was and also fully God back in genesis while doing those things!

 

[Rippon2]

This falls under the doctrine of Impassibility.

"Impassibility is that divine attribute whereby God is said not to experience inner emotional changes of state, whether enacted freely from within or effected by his relationship to and interaction with human beings and created order." (Thomas Weinandy)

God speaks in the Scriptures with accommodating language.

Language about God falls under either proper prediction or improper predication.

Proper predication deals with elements that are of the very essence of God such as his love, mercy, holiness and eternality.

Improper predication is that which is figuratively predicated of God:
2) Anthropopathic : refers to the figurative use of emotions and passions to describe God (e.g. God suffering, grieving, repenting, regretting, being frustrated, etc.)

The above is abbreviated from an earlier post of mine for the benefit of Steven and others. You guys have the underlying premise of an improper predication.

 

[Yeshua1]

The above is abbreviated from an earlier post of mine for the benefit of Steven and others. You guys have the underlying premise of an improper predication.

What are you saying here?

 

[Calminian]

Are you saying that God reacted after the Fall happened, so that he had no plan in mind until after that occurred then?

Not temporally, no. All God's reactions are in eternity past, based on his foreknowledge. So I don't believe God ever reacts "after" in the sense of time. He only reacts in a logical order, not a temporal order.

But I also do not believe God caused the fall by creating Adam and Eve with a penchant toward rebellion. Adam was free without a sin nature which would make his sin inevitable. God knew of his choice in eternity past and reacted to it in eternity past.

 

[Rippon2]

What are you saying here?

Go to post #23 of mine and read with comprehension.

 

[Calminian]

...God speaks in the Scriptures with accommodating language.....

What bothers me about this position is it rings of non-concordism. Denis Lamoureux and John Walton propose similar notions, proposing that Scripture was never meant to convey the true history of the earth, but that God merely used the accommodating language of pagan history and science.

It's the idea that early humans could not grasp the concepts that their modern counterparts can now. Something's amiss with this thinking.

 

[Yeshua1]

What bothers me about this position is it rings of non-concordism. Denis Lamoureux and John Walton propose similar notions, proposing that Scripture was never meant to convey the true history of the earth, but that God merely used the accommodating language of pagan history and science.

It's the idea that early humans could not grasp the concepts that their modern counterparts can now. Something's amiss with this thinking.

Some even push this to the degree that Jesus Himself was accommodating to the customs and thoughts of his time, so was wrong about Creation ,demon possession , history of the OT etc!

if they were so much more stupid than us today, how is it that we still could not do the Pyramids even today as well as they did?

 

[37818]

The Father was and also fully God back in genesis while doing those things!

God as the Father speaks. Luke 3:22. And the Holy Spirit acts. God the Father speaks, Mark 9:7. John 14:8-9, God the Father speaks directly by way of the Son. They are the one God. The Son is the sole agency of cause, John 1:3. John 5:19.

 

[Yeshua1]

God as the Father speaks. Luke 3:22. And the Holy Spirit acts. God the Father speaks, Mark 9:7. John 14:8-9, God the Father speaks directly by way of the Son. They are the one God. The Son is the sole agency of cause, John 1:3. John 5:19.

3 Persons, correct?

 

[37818]

3 Persons, correct?

Yes. Without beginning. The one LORD God.

 

[Rippon2]

Some even push this to the degree that Jesus Himself was accommodating to the customs and thoughts of his time, so was wrong about Creation ,demon possession , history of the OT etc!

if they were so much more stupid than us today, how is it that we still could not do the Pyramids even today as well as they did?

How could you be with so little understanding? Did you do as I asked and read my post #23?