ARCHIVE:God repenting and nacham

[Surly-DwarF]

Geoff,

Yeah, going on past experience, it wouldn't surprise me, but I still might review the thread and make a few comments, especially after he chided me up there. Not because I think there's any validity to it, but because he thinks there is and I want to act in good faith. Or something. Not exactly sure what I mean. I just don't want him to think I'm any worse of a guy than he already does. I don't know if that makes sense to you, but anyway

 

[Surly-DwarF]

1013 Wow mike. You worry that I might be evasive and excercize double speak and yet here you are once again prejudging before examining the evidence.

I'm not prejudging, Roberto. I have an inkling of what's to transpire, backed up by experience.

Are you serious about this or are you going to read this just for kicks. But when you read through it and can honestly recognize the evasions, you'll get a kick alright.

I'm seriously going to read through it for kicks and because I AM going to evaluate the arguments used on both sides to see what I think of them. That should make you happy, right? You charge that Geoff, GP and Mael evaded. I guess we'll find out.

But there is a point to it. Remember, I did not start this thread. Gray Pilgrim did and he nor anyone else defended that position as biblically consistent (our passages were not addressed)

Geoff seems to think so. But again, we'll see.

...nor necessarily arising from the text, (you could take his view on the particular passages that were discussed by the immutabilists here, but on account of rules written by the grammarians and the treatment of other experts, there is room for disagreement) and account of the former, the classical position has failed as far as this thread is concerned.

It's all there plain as day.

Ok, I understand what you're saying and what you truly feel has happened, but that is a pretty strong claim, and in light of the bludgeoning the OV has taken on other threads, I'm not overly optimistic on your behalf.

By the way, the meat and potatoes of this thread is only 2 pages plus a couple more posts. Time constraints really are no excuse.

Ok, ok. I'm just not very fast...

Mike

 

[geoff]

Mike,

lemme send you a rocket pack

 

[1013]

I'm not prejudging, Roberto. I have an inkling of what's to transpire, backed up by experience.

well, my experience tells me that you have not interpreted your experiences well mikerto. I'm really not interesested in these general assessements because they are never backed up by specifics and I find them offensive. If I knew they had a basis in truth, It would be different. If you ever want to seriously discuss this, perhaps Geoff's god test thread is still around to be bumped(I assume that thread might be typical of what you are complaining of). To be sure, I had to think through some things in the middle but I am convinced that I my position came out stronger, and then to top it off, arminian, who holds to edf came out and repeated some of the same things I had said and this without even reading my posts. But lets not discuss that here but in that thread and only if you want to bump it. If its gone, I suppose you could start the topic over again and that might get us somewhere but it won't be exactly the same as examining the methodology.

Also, perhaps you treat systems of thought as if they ought to be frozen and if someone changes something for a problem, perhaps you think that that is evasive, or doublespeak or what have you. But mike we think paradigmatically and paradigms can undergo several significant changes and still hold strongly to the central positions. It isn't doublespeak or evasions but is quite natural and rational and it is the way science functions. It is both unavoidably subjective and objective. But my paradigm never underwent any significant changes in that thread. As to whether there were actually changes or I just merely got better at defending the position, I haven't made up my mind on that and it has been awhile.

That should make you happy, right? You charge that Geoff, GP and Mael evaded.

Ironically, geoff is the only one who barely addressed the other verses, but intead of giving an alternative explanation (sorely needed) he just said, "well this just creates theological problems" and the problems were rebutted to which Geoff just repeated himself without rebutting the rebutts, just as he did in the annhilation thread very recently on the corporate election buisness with regards to individuals. No significant attention is given by geoff and no attetnion by anyone else.

and in light of the bludgeoning the OV has taken on other threads, I'm not overly optimistic on your behalf.

again experience is interpreted. I've got a different interpretation

Ok, ok. I'm just not very fast...

bueno

 

[Surly-DwarF]

bump

 

[1013]

Although Gray Pilgrim has failed to make his case against taking sense of the imperfect form of nachum in the numbers 23 passage as the obligative as I have provided biblical counter examples from grammarian Ron Williams, it has come to my attention that there is another passage cited by bill betzler that would've served Pilgrim and knightowl's purposes better for their claims and that is Malachi 3:6 which is translated "I do not change".

I bring this up that because I have focused on demonstrating that the context contributes to the case for taking nachum in numbers as the obligitive of the imperfect. But as that may not be possible nor is it picked up upon by any translators for Malachi 3:6, we are back to a challenge that knightowl made. He since the passage said "I do not change" instead of "I won't change," (and of course as I have shown his instistance for that verse is on shaky ground) we should take that as broadly as possible meaning total immutibility.

I only challenged that that verse said that at all. I said it was was of obligation. God didn't have to change. I didn't challenge that "I do not change" as opposed to "I should not" could not be limited by context.

But as that will not work for Malachi 3:6, knightowl's claim should be examined again for this verse.

For malachi 3:6 I will once again point to the context only this time, I will say that in light of the context, even if I could argue that this was the obligative of the imperfect, I'm not sure that I would want to because it is not just the case that God is not obliged to change but rather that he doesn't change in these instances.

What is the context here? In 3:5 God lists evils that he is against. He does not change on account of those. Then in 3:6 and on, God speaks of issues relating to his promises of his people. The sons of Jacob will not be consumed.

So here do we see that the changlessness necessarily refers to all possible changes? Not at all but rather in how God judges, and concerning the preservation of his people. In this, he will not and does not change.

Now to those who would insist otherwise, that we should take this statement in the broadest sense possible, I'll say that we just don't use language that way. I could say "I do not lie" and someone could come up to me and say "well what about the time long ago when such and such hApped and you said..." Well obviously the context of what the case is currently is in view as opposed to my whole life. Or what if you walked up some lady and pinched her bum. She could smack you and say "I don't go in for that kind of behavior." Well if she's married she might go in for that kind of behavior after all, but not in a context outside of marriage. But was she wrong to say to you what she did? not at all.

 

[Surly-DwarF]

I've started going thru the thread to see what I make of it. Not sure how soon or how long of a response I'll be making yet. I've been thinking over the Numbers and Exodus passages. Now I guess I'll have to add Malachi to them. At any rate, it might be helpful if you'd tell me exactly what you think they're trying to tell us. It seems to me that you are interpreting them as teaching God changed His mind or purpose about some things He fully intended to do, based on the intercession of another i.e. Moses. Is that it, or is there more to what you're saying? I want to give you the chance here to very clearly state what you're asserting and the IMPLICATIONS of your interpretations. Like I said, I think I already have a pretty good idead, but I don't want to go off on a wild goose chase.

Mike

 

[geoff]

Mike,

Maybe I can help here:

Rob is trying to tell us that those passages indicates God has changes, and that at least some of the future is uncertain and unknowable by God.

Call out the posse if I am wrong...

yee haw, git along lil doggies
(ever wondered what it would be like to hear John Wayne reading the sunday morning bible reading? lol)

 

[1013]

Well, what I've pointed out is that how moses acts and what he says indicates that he believes that God can change his mind.

What arminian has emphasised is that God said he would do something and then he doesn't do it. Either he lied or he changed his mind.

Nothing has been said about this except for what little (very little) that Geoff said. No alternative understanding has been given.

As for the verses against God's repentence, they have a context and ought not be removed from that context to say things that they don't. My first volley of responses for this emphasized the context of the numbers passage and syntactical issues. For Malachi 3:6, as far as I can tell, the syntactical issue is not the same and I have emphasized the context and have pointed to the normality of the way I have taken the language there.

 

[geoff]

Moses DOESNT say God can change his mind at all, especially in Ex 32, what He DOES says is that God would be acting inconsistantly with His Own nature if He did do what He said.

If God can not act any other way apart from in accordance with His own nature, Moses was fairly safe pointing it out, now wasnt he?

Thats the point... the passage was never intended to show God 'changes' but rather that God grants Mercy in accordance with His nature, and that His people need someone to intercede for them (a type of the Messiah).

I would suggest the Word Commentary on this passage, as it has a fairly technical and relatively objective view on it.

 

[1013]

2nd post

I am waiting for your response surly.

I'd like to mention that when I spoke of implications, I believe that I was talking about the implications of what moses believed. If Moses had certain beliefs as a result of his highly important encounters with God, it is certainly reasonable for us to conclude that his beliefs are accurate.

 

[geoff]

We can only come to any conclusion about what Moses believed by What He sais, and what he said was that God would not be acting in accordance with His own Nature if he destroyed Israel arbitrarily.

 

[1013]

My conversation is not with just anyone surly, but if you like what someone else says, you can repeat it and argue along those lines if you like.

 

[geoff]

hahahha...

now there's a confidence inspiring post

 

[Surly-DwarF]

Rob,

Thanks for boiling your position down for me somewhat. You'll have an answer, or some kind of statement-like thingy before too long hopefully. You may have noticed I'm not posting on other threads till I finish dealing with this one. I think what Geoff has said so far is pretty on the mark, though I may have more to say about it or slightly different slants when I give my reasons, though I'm sure I'll be repeating some of what he and others have said. In other words, though I'm still giving the whole matter thought, I haven't been obliged to alter my views. Mainly, I'm considering the best way to point out how I think the "God actually changes His mind" argument(s) comes up short (very short). Because, in my honest judgment, being as unbiased as I know how to be, I think they're untenable. But that probably doesn't surprise you.

Mike

 

[1013]

You may have noticed I'm not posting on other threads till I finish dealing with this one.

bless your heart

I think what Geoff has said so far is pretty on the mark

just so you know, anything that you do not bring up will not be addressed by me as far as what he says is concerned. I will point out that rebuttle is not enough. You must refute what I've said or I will bring up what you've neglected. Geoff has offered nothing in the way of refutation but only rebuttle and I have refuted his previous rebuttles to which he just repeated himself without addressing the refutation. (refutation is a direct attck on the reasoning put forward. a rebuttle is not direct but a reason not to hold the opposing position without directly addressing the the specific arguments laid out for that position) But there is something new on the previous page that he has mentioned recently that would be worthy of discussion. But it is not worth discussing with him.

 

[1013]

boint!

 

[geoff]

i am moved to pity...

seriously...

 

[jeremiah]

If one is incapable of ever imposing their will upon a superior being, then one's hopes lie in the chance that something said, or done, or given, might please the superior one so that he would change his mind or will. In the Bible, God has changed His course of action by such appeals and the counsel of his own will. He has changed from dealing with a sinful and disobediant people from justice to mercy or mercy to justice. However his character has not changed and I think that is what is meant but not explicitely stated in Numbers 23-19. God cannot lie, it is against His character, therefore He would never have to repent of lying, for example. He will always deal with sin, but He does change His response while still being true to His judgments and mercies.
I think that is a partial answer to why Satan continues to fight the Lord. He knows God deals with people in two ways, justice and mercy. Yet with himself only in judgment. There is no redemption for fallen angels! Therefore he hopes to turn the heart of God against all of mankind as at the flood.{except for Noah} . Since God does repent towards the way he has judged individuals and nations. It is Satan's last and only hope to also change God's character and Word, or at least change God's heart from LOVING mercy, to condemning all of us.
Unfortunately for Satan God can no longer condemn all of us who have already obtained His mercy,without also condemning His own Son.

 

[geoff]

interesting thoughts Jeremiah