This quote here provides a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Honestly, I don't have a real problem with this interpretation. But notice that the text ITSELF says that God 'changed his mind.' So, its not just that it 'seems to us that God changed His mind,' the text actually says that He did.
How do some handle that? Just like Amy did, they interpret it 'anthropomorphically,' meaning they take the words of scripture as revealing something about God's actions as if He was 'like men' because that is the way it appeared to the writers of scripture as it was revealed to them. Why not take that same reasonable principle of interpretation and use it to interpret some of the 'terror' passages? Calvinists seem willing to use 'reasonable' (and sometimes what some would label "liberal") methods of interpretations to explain 'apparent contradictions' where God is revealed as acting contraction to one of his divine attributes.
Example:
1. We know God is immutable and omniscient but the OT text reveals him changing his mind and relenting. (Calvinists willing to apply 'liberal' interpretative techniques to reconcile the apparent contradiction)
2. We know God is omnibenevolent, Holy, loving, kind, patient, teaches us to be kind to our enemies, doesn't even tempt men to evil etc, but the OT text reveals him as being apparently contradictory to these attributes. (Calvinists unwilling to apply 'liberal' interpretative techniques to reconcile the apparent contradiction)
I'm merely calling you all to be consistent anytime there are apparent contradiction and not to attack another brother for doing the exact same things you do on other texts when it suits your purposes. Could it be that some of the 'terror' passages were likewise 'anthropomorphic' in nature, in that God actions are being revealed in limited human terms that are better understood in the context of all we REALLY know of God in light of the whole revelation of scripture? Understand?
