Is God immutable?

[unred typo]

[quote="unred typo":a24ee]
God changes his mind many times. What doesn’t change is God’s character and his motives and his attributes. He will always be omnipotent (all-powerful), omnipresent (ever-present) and omniscient (all-knowing), with omniscient being cognizant of every particle of knowledge that can possibly be known in every place in the entire creation, including the thoughts and intents of every thinking and/or feeling creature, at every present moment of time. (the future not included because it does not exist now any more than the past exists still). He also is absolutely holy, (all righteous) and purest Love, (all merciful).

Wrong' He knew us from the foundations of the world. That statement waters down God's power. Everything is known to God. Because everthing is before Him' in the eternal now. There are a couple of statements in the english Bible that makes you wonder. To Abraham when he was going to kill his son. And after he stopped Abaraham' God said (now I know) and there is another one' I forgot where. But I have never looked that statement up' in the original language and or translation. [/quote:a24ee]

If we existed before the foundation of the world, sure, I’d agree that God knew us. If we were just a twinkle in our father’s eyes, he would have known us when we were just a twinkle. He knows everything that possibly can be known in that ‘eternal now,’ (which is this ever-present-ever-changing moment) and has enough power to deal with any possible combination of unknown events before they can be known by anyone else. Nothing can thwart his will. How is that watering down his power?

There are many verses that suggest that God is waiting to find out what men will do, testing them, giving them space to repent, making ultimatums, giving them options to choose good or evil. The entire Bible is written in this vein.

 

[unred typo]

Quote: A true and consistent O.T [OT = Open Theist] would have to be a Deist, as this is the only consistent position for one who denies God's pre-determination of history. The god of the Deist only involves himself in the first creation and the reward/punishment of the soul after death. Everything in-between is supposed to proceed based on the inherent goodness that their god invested in creation at the beginning. The good 'outweighs' the bad in the creation and therefore 'guarantees' that the historical process will continue--even though none of it is predestined.
But most who profess Christianity and play the harlot with O.T. want a synthesis, of course. So these teach that their god has determined only certain events within history and left the rest to the random process of Deism. How this 'mix' of predetermination and open history exactly fits together is conveniently left to a theology of paradox. The whole thing is completely illogical--as every historical event is dependent on every other historical event that preceeds it falling into place with exact precision. But the O.T. tries to explain away the paradox by saying that its god constantly observes a non-determined history, is even changed emotionally by what he (or she!) observes, and looks for opportunities to carry out within it what he or she has determined to perform.

Well, there you have it, JM. I’m not an Open Theist. You’ll just have to answer my posts the old fashioned way; read them, think about them and write your own replies, no cut and paste answers from OT opposition sites on the internet.

There is no paradox to explain. God makes plans for the future, just like you plan a picnic at the beach. He knows what he has to do to bring it pass and he goes about it without any help from people who insist he can’t do that. Tell you what, you give me any recorded prediction that needed to be fulfilled and my puny brain could conceive of a way my God can bring it to pass, even given the ‘meager’ powers that he has. Remember that my God knows everything that possibly can be known in this present time, including the thoughts and intents of every person alive, and that he has all power to do anything, including power over minds and hearts when ever he wants to control them.

8-)

 

[JM]

Wrong' He knew us from the foundations of the world.

Lewis, you’re absolutely correct.

[edit: to highlight the statement I agreed with.]

 

[unred typo]

Wrong' He knew us from the foundations of the world. That statement waters down God's power. Everything is known to God. Because everthing is before Him' in the eternal now. There are a couple of statements in the english Bible that makes you wonder. To Abraham when he was going to kill his son. And after he stopped Abaraham' God said (now I know) and there is another one' I forgot where. But I have never looked that statement up' in the original language and or translation.

Lewis, you’re absolutely correct.

I’m confused. Is Lewis correct about the couple of statements that make you wonder if God knows the future? If so, I agree. Or is Lewis correct that there is ‘another one’ where God seems to be waiting for the results of a test of some human? If so, I agree and then some. Or is Lewis correct in that he has forgotten where and hasn’t bothered to look it up? That, I don’t agree with. Lewis, you should take the time to find not only those couple of verses but many more as well. There are tons of them.

 

[JM]

1 Peter 1:2 -- “Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.â€Â

What is foreknowledge?

"Foreknowledge - This word denotes “the seeing beforehand of an event yet to take place.†It implies: 1. Omniscience; and, 2. That the event is fixed and certain. To foresee a contingent event, that is, to foresee that an event will take place when it may or may not take place, is an absurdity. Foreknowledge, therefore, implies that for some reason the event will certainly take place. What that reason, however, God is represented in the Scriptures as purposing or determining future events; as they could not be foreseen by him unless he had so determined, so the word sometimes is used in the sense of determining beforehand, or as synonymous with decreeing, (Romans 8:29/11:2). In this place the word is used to denote that the delivering up of Jesus was something more than a bare or naked decree. It implies that God did it according to his foresight of what would be the best time, place, and manner of its being done. It was not the result merely of will; it was will directed by a wise foreknowledge of what would be best. And this is the case with all the decrees of God. It follows from this that the conduct of the Jews was foreknown. God was not disappointed in anything respecting their treatment of his Son, nor will he be disappointed in any of the actions of people. Notwithstanding the wickedness of the world, his counsel shall stand, and he will do all his pleasure, (Isaiah 46:10)

unred, are you ready for a formal debate yet?

~JM~

 

[fcs25]

In His nature not in His actions!

 

[Solo]

Explain what ‘wind’ you would like removed from my last post here and I will remove it.

You asked me to answer your questions in four different posts, and instead of going back fighting through all of the excess mumbo jumbo that you post, I asked you to just post your questions in order, and I will answer them. If you do not, then my assumption that you are trolling is correct.

 

[unred typo]

You asked me to answer your questions in four different posts, and instead of going back fighting through all of the excess mumbo jumbo that you post, I asked you to just post your questions in order, and I will answer them. If you do not, then my assumption that you are trolling is correct.

They are not just questions you can plow through and cast aside. What I wrote has significance that you either refuse to admit and accept or deny in an explicit fashion. Your unwillingness to consider my statements fairly betrays your own disdain for other‘s views. If you don’t have anything constructive to answer, I can accept that but be assured I am sincerely concerned to know your position even when I’m bluntly stating your paucity of theological truth. I was not trolling. Are you?

 

[Solo]

They are not just questions you can plow through and cast aside. What I wrote has significance that you either refuse to admit and accept or deny in an explicit fashion. Your unwillingness to consider my statements fairly betrays your own disdain for other‘s views. If you don’t have anything constructive to answer, I can accept that but be assured I am sincerely concerned to know your position even when I’m bluntly stating your paucity of theological truth. I was not trolling. Are you?

I did not think that you had any real questions to ask. I do disdain all false teachings of which yours are part and parcel of. You have informed me to the reason of your false teachings, and they are very apparent to those that are born again. I will keep you in my prayers, dear soul.

 

[Drew]

But most who profess Christianity and play the harlot with O.T. want a synthesis, of course. So these teach that their god has determined only certain events within history and left the rest to the random process of Deism. How this 'mix' of predetermination and open history exactly fits together is conveniently left to a theology of paradox. The whole thing is completely illogical--as every historical event is dependent on every other historical event that preceeds it falling into place with exact precision

I think the stuff in bold is false and I hope to make a case to that effect in future posts. It is only because of our lack of imagination that we accept the idea that God must control every event in order to achieve His purposes.

 

[unred typo]

I did not think that you had any real questions to ask. I do disdain all false teachings of which yours are part and parcel of. You have informed me to the reason of your false teachings, and they are very apparent to those that are born again. I will keep you in my prayers, dear soul.

Here are some questions for you. When Jesus left this earth, giving instruction to his disciples, what did he tell them to teach? Did he tell them to urge people to say the sinner’s prayer and become born again? Did he tell them to make sure that all believers only believed in his death, burial and resurrection for salvation, not their works? Did he remind them to teach the correct doctrine of the trinity and the proper observance of his new day of worship on Sunday? Not a bit of it, Solo. He told them to teach everyone to observe whatsoever things he had commanded. Do you know what he commanded? Can you list a few things?

You may have also guessed that these questions are rhetorical, and I don’t actually expect you to answer them. I doubt if you will even think about them seriously, but I don’t know the future, nor your heart, nor the intents of it. Only God can look into that place in the soul and make a determination if one is repentant, or ready to become born again or too resistant to the water of life to soften and allow the roots of the word of God to penetrate and grow. Even then, the Bible says God himself patiently waits to see what fruit may come of it. Only the fruit is saved, the rest is burnt away. If there is no fruit, what will be left?

 

[unred typo]

I think the stuff in bold is false and I hope to make a case to that effect in future posts. It is only because of our lack of imagination that we accept the idea that God must control every event in order to achieve His purposes.

I have asked JM to give me an instance of some recorded prediction so that I might try my puny imagination to see if I could devise a way to bring it to pass without an exhaustive knowledge of the future, but so far he has not come up with any inexplicable problem for me. Actually, he hasn’t offered any. Perhaps your estimation of the problem is exactly correct.

 

[JM]

I have asked JM to give me an instance of some recorded prediction so that I might try my puny imagination to see if I could devise a way to bring it to pass without an exhaustive knowledge of the future, but so far he has not come up with any inexplicable problem for me. Actually, he hasn’t offered any. Perhaps your estimation of the problem is exactly correct.

In case you didn’t notice, analogies, antidote stories or illustrations cannot prove or disprove points, so what you ask is pointless.

We need to deal with Biblical passages, not philological humanistic rambles. I understand that you and Drew can’t deal with this, fine, I’ve noticed this trend with both of you. Scripture is almost always lacking in your posts and you offer little or nothing in terms of exegesis of the texts in question. When someone does, you’ve called it “mucky muck.â€Â

Post Scripture and what you think it means or give up.

~JM~

 

[unred typo]

I have given you opportunity to publicly embarrass me with your proof of the following statement:

How this 'mix' of predetermination and open history exactly fits together is conveniently left to a theology of paradox. The whole thing is completely illogical--as every historical event is dependent on every other historical event that preceeds it falling into place with exact precision.

I guess when you said it would be “conveniently left to a theology of paradox’, you meant for your convenience, huh? :wink:

Give up? no no. :-D Bring it on.

 

[JM]

I have given you opportunity to publicly embarrass me with your proof of the following statement:


I guess when you said it would be “conveniently left to a theology of paradox’, you meant for your convenience, huh? :wink:

Give up? no no. :-D Bring it on.

That would be a quote, not my words, just a quote.

Does that mean you're willing to have a formal debate with me yet, one that would include dealing with Scripture that you have so far left out of your rants?

~JM~

 

[Drew]

In case you didn’t notice, analogies, antidote stories or illustrations cannot prove or disprove points, so what you ask is pointless.

Not true. Often illustrations and analogies are useful tools to test the conceptual integrity of certain ideas. By subjecting a somewhat vague hypothesis to a kind of "thought experiment", we find out if the hypothesis really plays out coherently. Einstein made a lot of his discoveries as a result of "thought experiments". The incoherence of the notion that "God elects some to salvation without regard to their personal characteristics" (as an example) can be (and has been) demonstrated through analogy.

The bottom line is that ideas need to be subject to the crucible of testing, whether empirically, or by more abstract means.

We need to deal with Biblical passages, not philological humanistic rambles. I understand that you and Drew can’t deal with this, fine, I’ve noticed this trend with both of you.

There is no doubt that the application of sound and logical reasoning is an integral part of our collective search for truth. There is no such thing as being "too intellectual". And, of course, the long time reader will know that I do indeed use Scripture. How about 2 Kings 20 verses 1 -7?

 

[Drew]

In reference to OP question about whether God changes his mind, I submit the following text from 2 Kings 20. I have added bolding for emphasis:

In those days Hezekiah became ill and was at the point of death. The prophet Isaiah son of Amoz went to him and said, "This is what the LORD says: Put your house in order, because you are going to die; you will not recover." Hezekiah turned his face to the wall and prayed to the LORD, "Remember, O LORD, how I have walked before you faithfully and with wholehearted devotion and have done what is good in your eyes." And Hezekiah wept bitterly. Before Isaiah had left the middle court, the word of the LORD came to him: "Go back and tell Hezekiah, the leader of my people, 'This is what the LORD, the God of your father David, says: I have heard your prayer and seen your tears; I will heal you. On the third day from now you will go up to the temple of the LORD. I will add fifteen years to your life. And I will deliver you and this city from the hand of the king of Assyria. I will defend this city for my sake and for the sake of my servant David.' " Then Isaiah said, "Prepare a poultice of figs." They did so and applied it to the boil, and he recovered.

The above is the word of God. Now the plain reading is clear - God changes his mind and heals Hez. I will be interested to see how the above text is reconciled with the "God never changes His mind" position without resorting to "philological humanistic rambles".

I am not saying this text absolutely proves that God changes His mind. It is possible that an anthropromorphic "device" is being used here (at the end of the day, I do not actually believe this, but it is possible).

The very real problem is that to make such an argument, a person who decries "philological humanistic rambles" has to engage in this behaviour himself - how else could he deny the "plain reading" without an appeal to such a literary device? And how is this appeal not "humanistic" reasoning?

I am not the one who thinks "humanistic reasoning" is bad, so I have no objection to such counterarguments. But one needs to be consistent about whether such reasoning is legitimate.

 

[JM]

Not true.

Yes it is true.

Often illustrations and analogies are useful tools to test the conceptual integrity of certain ideas. By subjecting a somewhat vague hypothesis to a kind of "thought experiment", we find out if the hypothesis really plays out coherently. Einstein made a lot of his discoveries as a result of "thought experiments". The incoherence of the notion that "God elects some to salvation without regard to their personal characteristics" (as an example) can be (and has been) demonstrated through analogy.

The bottom line is that ideas need to be subject to the crucible of testing, whether empirically, or by more abstract means.

You just used a few illustrations to try and prove it to be true, but it fails, useful tools yes. Tools to use as proof, no.

Merriam-Websters:
1 a : the action of illustrating : the condition of being illustrated b archaic : the action of making illustrious or honored or distinguished
2 : something that serves to illustrate : as a : an example or instance that helps make something clear b : a picture or diagram that helps make something clear or attractive

___________________________-

If 2 Kings 20 refers to a real change as Drew contends of God’s eternal mind, then we have a problem, the Bible then contradicts itself.

Joh 21:17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

1Jo 3:20 For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.

We know that God in fact knows all, so what is meant in this passage?

1Sa 15:29 And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.

We also know that “repent†cannot mean what Drew believes it to mean, when the Bible talks about God “changing His mind†or repenting it cannot be as a man repents as 1 Sam. states so clearly. To get a better understanding of this passage we need to look at 2 Chronicles 32:24-26 and Isaiah 38:1-22 as I have posted before.

Side note: Using the search function on this forum will find you the previous posts on this subject and the insistence of Drew to build a cause for God changing His mind based on this one passage out of context [the whole Bible being the context]. This passage has been delt with a few times.

Interpretation of 2 Kings 20:1-11 and Jonah 3 - 4/2
The case of Hezekiah's sickness in 2 Kings 20 is supplemented by the parallel passages in 2 Chronicles 32:24-26 and Isaiah 38:1-22. These passages reveal that by the 14th year of his reign, Hezekiah yielded to pride in spite of God's goodness to him and to Judah, protecting them from the disaster that befell Samaria through the Assyrian conquest. To deal with this defect, God announced to Hezekiah that if he continued in his self-sufficiency, his life was at an end, for no human power could overcome his deadly terminal disease. Only by a miracle could his life be continued. So Hezekiah "repented of the pride of his heart" (2 Chron. 32:26) and God graciously extended his life by 15 years: "I will heal you" (2 Kings 20:5) He said and the rest of the passage deals with the confirmation of God's miraculous power that would apply both to Hezekiah's personal life and to the protection of Judah from Assyrian attacks (2 Kings 20:6; Isaiah 38:6). This is articulated very clearly in Hezekiah's song recorded for us in Isaiah 38:10-20. That this whole process does not reflect a change of mind on God's part is manifest from the fact that in that same fourteenth year of Hezekiah's reign, God had promised him at least three more years of life (2 Kings 9:29) and that the birth of his son Manasseh, necessary for the fulfillment of God's promise to David ( 2 Sam. 1:12-16), also took place 3 years later in the seventeenth year of his reign (2 Kings 21:1).
The case of Jonah's prophecy is even clearer for the Ninevites understood well that Jonah's announcement did not mean "whatever you do, I have determined to obliterate you within forty days" but rather "forty more days of your rebellious conduct and I will "let you have it!" The Ninevites, led by their king, responded in due repentance and abandonment of "their evil ways and violence" (Jonah 3:8). They rightly used the 40 days' reprieve as a time of humiliation and renewal. Thus they gained another reprieve of some 150 years!! It is noteworthy that Jonah himself had anticipated this development (Jonah 4:2) and that is why he wanted to flee to Tarshish, being eager to see the discomfiture of Israel's enemy rather than their continued existence. From beginning to the end God's purpose was the same, to wit a moral renewal in Nineveh!
When such a sounder interpretation of the texts is acknowledged, the validity of claiming these cases as documenting a change of mind on God's part has vanished. If this is acknowledged, not only is their proof against God's fixity of purpose lost, but in the process their construction of the word Nicham as implying such a change is jeopardized. (Found 100 times in the Hebrew, it is translated as repent only 45 times in KJV. The translation "change one's mind" found 16 times with reference to God in NAB and NRSV is probably wrong, although 7 of these state that God "does not change his mind" Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:29 (twice), Ps. 110:4; Jer. 4:28; 20:16; Ezek. 24:14).
http://www.founders.org/FJ52/article2_fr.html

We can conclude that God does not change His mind.

~JM~

 

[Drew]

Using the search function on this forum will find you the previous posts on this subject and the insistence of Drew to build a cause for God changing His mind based on this one passage out of context [the whole Bible being the context]. This passage has been delt with a few times.

There are other texts. And yes, the text has been dealt with a few times. I would encourage any interested reader to visit the relevant threads and judge the quality of the arguments for themselves. Do not let either JM or me (or anyone else) "tell you" which argument is better - please use your own faculties and judge for yourself. I would happily post the links but either my search function does not work or I have not figured out how to use it.

 

[Drew]

If 2 Kings 20 refers to a real change as Drew contends of God’s eternal mind, then we have a problem, the Bible then contradicts itself.

Joh 21:17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

1Jo 3:20 For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.

As others have argued, it is not at all clear that the future is a "thing" that has the possibility to be known. The set of things to be known is not as wide open as one might think. Does God know the color of the unicorn in my closet? No He does not - there is no unicorn in my closet.

The status of "the" future as an object of possible knowledge is dubious at best. I think a much better conceptualisation is one whereby we see God as a "planner and fulfiller of plans". We can coherently assert that God makes plans and ensures that his plans are fulfilled. I see no Scriptural evidence to support the notion that God knows the future exhaustively.

Those who argue otherwise generally take texts that only justify a conclusion that God knows some things that will happen and they expect us to just accept a leap to a conclusion that He knows all things.

So the above texts do not create a "Bible contradicts itself" if we adopt what is in my view, a clearer, more Scripturally sound, understanding of the status of "the" future as a possible object of knowledge for God.