Proof that the bible god changes

[secretmessenger]

I think it can also be understood another way as well, God (having created time) is not bound by time and therefore doesn't live a continuous life moment by moment like we do. He is therefore outside of time and simultaneously in the past, present, and future presently. God doesn't change because of His eternal nature, he was always angry at Moses in that moment just as he is always happy when a sinner repents as though it is happening right now, for eternity. This would magnify the sacrifice of Jesus many many times over what we could ever possible understand as God is ever always experiencing that sacrifice as though it is happening right now in His face, and also multiplies His joy to heights we cannot fathom as everyone that has ever repented and recieved Christ fills him with unspeakable joy presently.

 

[GodsGrace]

Ralph I hear is around . He moves in mysterious ways ,lol

I doubt it.
He isn't interested in forums anymore.

The make-believe Ralph might be around, but he doesn't post anymore.
I wish he would.

 

[GodsGrace]

I think it can also be understood another way as well, God (having created time) is not bound by time and therefore doesn't live a continuous life moment by moment like we do. He is therefore outside of time and simultaneously in the past, present, and future presently. God doesn't change because of His eternal nature, he was always angry at Moses in that moment just as he is always happy when a sinner repents as though it is happening right now, for eternity. This would magnify the sacrifice of Jesus many many times over what we could ever possible understand as God is ever always experiencing that sacrifice as though it is happening right now in His face, and also multiplies His joy to heights we cannot fathom as everyone that has ever repented and recieved Christ fills him with unspeakable joy presently.

The above is very true.
And we should/must agree that there's no way we could understand God fully.
We can only know what He has revealed to us.
The best way is through Jesus, but it seems we can't even agree anymore on exactly who Jesus is.
The Catholics have it right. At least they all agree on everything.

 

[jasonc]

I doubt it.
He isn't interested in forums anymore.

The make-believe Ralph might be around, but he doesn't post anymore.
I wish he would.

Ralph ,lol lives in my state lol

 

[GodsGrace]

Ralph ,lol lives in my state lol

I know.
They both do.

 

[GodsGrace]

Hey All,
Perhaps it is a person's definition of what "change" means that is not allowing them to accept the truth; that anger can be an expression of love.

Anger is an expression of love, if the anger is meant as a tool to correct an errant situation.
If your child was playing with an electrical socket, you might smack his/her hand away to get their hand out of danger. You slapped their hand out of love. Your child only sees the anger and feels the pain, and therefore concludes, errantly, that mom/dad is angry.

You did not change. You still love your child as much as ever. But the child experiences the slap as a change from love to anger. They cannot grasp that the greater overriding reason which for you has remained the same. You love your child.

The writer of Hebrews tells us this:

Hebrews 12:6-8 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.

I threw in verse 8 because it adds to the discussion. (Boy, the writer doesn't mince words here.)
This is perhaps the most important reason why chastening - God's love perceived, by humans, as anger, - is proof that we are His children. God does not chasten bastards.
Why?
They are not His children.

Maybe the next time we feel God is angry with us we act differently. Instead of complaining about it, we thank God for it, and ask, "What are you trying to teach me Lord?”
⁶
Keep walking everybody.
May God bless,
Taz

You're usually right on the ball Josef.
But I'm not sure the above is what is being discussed.
Does God CHANGE when His mood changes?
Or does He remain the same?
(however you want to understand "mood" when discussing God).

 

[Fastfredy0]

of course it's antrhropomorphic, but in some way, God must surely react to what we do.

Incorrect.
React is defined as: To act in response to or under the influence of a stimulus or prompting.
Job 35:7 “If you are righteous, what do you give God,
Or what does He receive from your hand?
8 “Your wickedness affects only a man such as you,
And your righteousness affects only a son of man [but it cannot affect God, who is sovereign].

God determines all things. All things go as He planned them. He is uninfluenced by anything. Egotistical man thinks he can influence God.

Romans 11:36 For from Him [all things originate] and through Him [all things live and exist] and to Him are all things [directed]. To Him be glory and honor forever! Amen.
yahda, yahda

 

[Fastfredy0]

he thing is, the article seems to lean towards the passibility of God.

Hmmm ... I was lazy and didn't read it assuming it would agree with me ... *giggle*. I like the site as it often lays out various opinions.

I don't see how the impassibility of God can be supported by Scripture.

Seems simple to me. God is immutable, sovereign, has no succession of moments, knows all future things and controls them and therefore impassible.

Impassible :

1. Not subject to suffering, pain, or harm.
2. Unfeeling; impassive.
3. Incapable of suffering; inaccessible to harm or pain; not to be touched or moved to passion or sympathy; unfeeling, or not showing feeling; without sensation.

I read something that basically said God may have passions but not like us. It went like this:
Vincent Cheung – God Cannot Experience Emotion as Man Does

The immutability of God implies the IMPASSIBILITY of God. This means that God is without "passions" – emotions or feelings. Less thoughtful believers protest against the doctrine, since they misapply biblical passages that seem to describe a God who experiences emotions such as grief, joy, and wrath (Psalm 78:40; Isaiah 62:5; Revelation 19:15). Passages that appear to ascribe emotions to God are anthropopathic.

The view that God experiences emotions like men appear to entail a number of contradictions: A man may become angry against his will in the sense that he does not choose to become angry, and he does not choose to experience whatever causes the anger, but that the "trigger" incites this emotion in him against his preference. This applies to human experiences of joy, fear, grief, and so on. However, this cannot be true with God even if he were to experience emotions, because such lack of self-control contradicts his omniscience, sovereignty (He controls all events), and immutability (He is not merry one moment and sad another for God is eternal; He has no succession of moments).

Since God is omniscient, he cannot be surprised, and this at least eliminates certain ways of experiencing emotions.

Perhaps the reply is that all facts are simultaneously present to God, so that the insult that angers him is always happening "now" [God has no succession of moments]. But this would imply that God must be angry about this one insult throughout eternity, and not just when it happens. If so, then God's emotions would not offer us the kind of interactivity that proponents of divine emotions are after. In any case, suppose something happens that alleviates this anger. Of course, the only way is forgiveness through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. But since God knows Christ's sacrifice just as well as the man's insult, we are at a loss as to whether he is ever angry or not. The mental experiment results in absurdity, because the truth is that God is not like man. Isaiah 58:8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the Lord.

Then, if an action of mine can cause anger in God in a similar way that I can cause anger in a man, then this means that I can cause anger in God by my power. To the degree that he lacks self-control, he is helpless against my efforts to cause anger in him. Likewise, if an action of mine can produce joy in God in a similar way that I can produce joy in a man, then this means that I have the ability to produce joy in God at will. In this manner, I would exercise a significant measure of control over God. But this contradicts his sovereignty [independence] and immutability. (Job 35:7-8a; Job 22:2-3; Romans 11:34-35; Isaiah 40:13; Acts 17:25, see Aseity (independence) of God)

The matter becomes much more complex when we take into account that he knows all the thoughts and actions of his creatures in all of history simultaneously. But it is enough to consider all the billions of people who anger him at any point in time, and the thousands or at least hundreds of people who please him at the same time. How is it possible for him to be angry with two billion people in a sense like man's anger and pleased with two hundred people, also in the human sense, at the same time? If the answer is that God's mind is immense, so that he is not subject to human limitations, then our point is also established.

Therefore, some form of divine impassibility is necessary. If God is angered by our sins, it is only because he wills to be angered by them, and not because his mental state is subject to our will or beyond his control. Even if God has emotions, they are under his control, and they will never compromise his divine attributes. And since they cannot compromise the divine attributes, this also means that even if he has emotions, he does not have them in a way that is similar to man. But then we wonder why we would still call them emotions. Thus at least in this sense and to this extent, we must affirm that God is without passions.

 

[miamited]

After the flood he became happier. God was angry, then he became happy.

HI Truth_is_powerful729292

Can you point me to the Scriptures that you're using to make that assessment of God's emotional state?

Oh, and I think that 'grieved' is more of a sorrowful emotion, rather than of anger.

God bless,
Ted