Interaction with perfect foreknowledge?

[STONE]

exactly! :thumb:

no one is arguing that God is fickle just because he changes his mind. we mean that previous to repentence God's mind towards an individual was that of wrath and after repentence that mind changed to one of love and kindness to the same individual. the circumstances bring about a change in mind of God because of God's unchanging judgements and righteous character.

You have the general idea, but I am concerned about this term you are using. Colloquially "Changes his mind" implies either whim or indecisive vacillation tward given circumstances. Obviously God doesn't need to reconsider things (he knows all), and we shouldn't want to recklessly imply this; nor is it proper to do so. Can you think of a more honorable way of saying God applies His unchanging judgements to circumstances as they change?

 

[STONE]

Lee: Then God might not judge the world, as described in Revelation?

Clete: That's exactly right! If the world repents, so will God and He will not judge them as predicted.

This is a stretch. Try to reconsider this Clete.

 

[godrulz]

Unless God is a stone idol, His relations, experiences, knowledge, actions, thoughts, and feelings can and do change. He is the Living, personal God.

 

[STONE]

God can and does change His mind like other free moral agents do in response to changing contingencies.

Unless God is a stone idol, His relations, experiences, knowledge, actions, thoughts, and feelings can and do change. He is the Living, personal God.

We shouldn't seek to model God after man, but rather seek to elevate the image (man) to God's will.

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."

 

[godrulz]

We shouldn't seek to model God after man, but rather seek to elevate the image (man) to God's will.

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."

We are in the moral, spiritual, and personal image of God. The fact that God has revealed Himself as personal vs impersonal, or living vs static, is not bringing God down. What is His self-revelation. He is distinct from creation, but that does not mean He is bizarre. We can know Him in relationship because He has will, intellect, and emotions. His perfections exceed our finiteness, but that does not mean that there is no similarity in divine and human qualities (love, faithfulness, etc.).

 

[STONE]

We are in the moral, spiritual, and personal image of God.

You should support this scripturally.

 

[godrulz]

You should support this scripturally.

There are not proof texts that contain all biblical truth in one verse.

Are we in the physical image of God, like the Mormons claim? They say the Father has flesh and bones and this is how we are in the image of God. God is spirit (Jn. 4:24). He is not flesh and bones, so we are not in the metaphysical image of God. He is the uncreated Creator. We are creatures with spirit, soul, and body (search all the verses that say man also has a spirit that is God-conscious).

We can establish that God, Father, Son, Spirit have will, intellect, emotions. Jesus and man also have these qualities. Hence, we are in the personal image of God (vs impersonal). You can find the verses yourself.

Concepts such as freedom, choice, righteousness, unrighteousness, holiness, obedience, disobedience, sin, sanctification, etc. are revealed explicitly for God, man, or both (God does not sin, but righteousness is used of man and God). Hence, we are in the moral image of God. We are free moral agents that are responsible/accountable for our choices.

Negatively, we are not in the physical image of God, since God is uncreated and we are finite creatures.

Both God and man are personal and moral (vs animals or objects).

These ideas are self-evident and supportable with verses.

In what sense do you think man is in the image of God? Can you add to or refute my general statements that most commentators do not question?

Every statement that we make on a discussion board does not have to have chapter and verse behind it. Most people take for granted that God and man are personal, moral, spiritual beings (vs immaterial) based on a basic knowledge of the Bible and reality.

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind.

Lee: And "change his mind" is the only meaning that fits, here.

Godrulz: Read the context. It is a contrast between God's faithfulness and man's fickleness.

But we cannot choose a meaning for a word, that is not one of the possible meanings for that word, that is the point I am trying to make. The choices before us do not include "fickleness" for "nacham," we must choose among the meanings this word must take.

And the only acceptable possibility is "change his mind" here, for God certainly can be grieved, and does relent, and never needs to repent, and the meaning of "comforted" will not do here, either.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[godrulz]

The context is clear. In this case, God WOULD not change His mind. You are going beyond the text to say that HE COULD not possibly change His mind. It is not a proof text for absolute immutability. Any personal being, including God, can and does change their minds and wills when they want. This does not mean they always will in any given situation. I do not dispute the translation, but your interpretation. The main reason is that your interpretation creates a contradiction with other verses that show that God can and does change His mind. Will not vs cannot resolves the contradiction. This passage is a specific promise, not a general principle. God is faithful to His Word, but sometimes He changes His mind (e.g. post-Fall) in response to men changing (conditional prophecies; Hezekiah= you will die....then, you will not die= change of mind). This is about the constancy of God's character, not the content of His experiences.

The text only claims that in this specific situation, God is not going to reverse His decision (literal= strength of OT hermeneutic). The more numerous texts affirming divine changeability must then (wrongly without warrant) be taken anthropomorphically.

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi Godrulz,

The context is clear. In this case, God WOULD not change His mind. You are going beyond the text to say that HE COULD not possibly change His mind.

But the context makes it clear what the reason is, why God will not change his mind, the alternative would be to lie, thus this implies that God will not go back on what he has said, "Does he speak, and not act, does he promise, and not fulfill?" The answer clearly is no, and this must mean that when God makes an unconditional promise, he will not reverse it, and thus God does not change his mind.

The main reason is that your interpretation creates a contradiction with other verses that show that God can and does change His mind. Will not vs cannot resolves the contradiction.

Unless these other verses can be read in other ways than the Open View reads them! You are doing the very same thing you say I cannot do, and interpreting this verse in Numbers differently than others do, to resolve the difficulty, and protesting when I reinterpret other verses, differently than you do, to resolve the difficulty.

The more numerous texts affirming divine changeability must then (wrongly without warrant) be taken anthropomorphically.

These verses use "nacham," though, do they not? If I'm thinking of the same verses that you are. And there is a range of meanings for "nacham," is there not? The NIV typically picks "grieved" in the passages where the Open View would read "change his mind," and "change his mind," where the Open View would read "change his mind this time." So then we have to evaluate each text, to see which approach is best.

In Num. 23:19, I think we have a clear indication of which way we should choose, for God has promised, and will not "nacham," and we know that Balak was not hoping God would relent from judgment, nor was he hoping God would be grieved or comforted, or that he would repent from sin, rather he was hoping God would change his mind.

And Balaam said this is not possible, for God gave his word, and for him to change his mind, would be to lie.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[godrulz]

I think we agree that in this case, God would not change His mind. This does not mean He cannot metaphysically change His mind if He wanted to in other cases. God can and does respond to prayer. This is an example of a mind change. The ability to change one's mind is perfection and freedom. It is inherent in being personal vs impersonal.
An unconditional declaration would make God a liar if He changed His mind in that case. Other contexts are more conditional (if...then...). God would follow through with His declarations unless they repented. If they repented, God would relent (change His mind). This would not make Him a liar, but true to His Word in that case (cf. Hezekiah; Jonah).

The future is not spoken of in terms of will and will not (closed). It is often spoken of in terms of might or might not (may/may not). i.e. God thinks of the future in terms of possibilities, not just certainties.

Unconditional: I will do this...and He does. The day of mercy/opportunity has passed.

Conditional: If you do this, then I will/will not do that. If you do not do this, I will or will not do this or that. Grace and mercy could still triumph over judgment (e.g. Jer. 26:3; Ex. 3 and 4).

One should not apply an unconditional text and extrapolate it to a conditional text. Context is king.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Colloquially "Changes his mind" implies either whim or indecisive vacillation tward given circumstances. Obviously God doesn't need to reconsider things (he knows all), and we shouldn't want to recklessly imply this; nor is it proper to do so. Can you think of a more honorable way of saying God applies His unchanging judgements to circumstances as they change?

it is always best to use language that conveys what we mean it to say. i think the main reason people don't like to say that God changes his mind is because they think it somehow diminishes his glory, when it doesn't at all. when i speak of God changing his mind, i do not mean to say in the least that he is fickle or that he overlooked something. i simply mean that his mindset towards a people was one way and it then changed to something else because of a change in circumstances. most people would agree with this, but refuse to call it "changing God's mind" for fear of reducing God's glory. if you have any suggestions of what we could instead call "changing God's mind", in reference to the principle of God's mindset being applied through his unchanging judgements to various circumstances as they change, i'm quite open to hearing them.

 

[godrulz]

'relent' and 'repent' are used in translations and imply a change of intention, mind, response.

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

'relent' and 'repent' are used in translations and imply a change of intention, mind, response.

"Relent" need not imply this, though, dictionary.com says this means "To become more lenient, compassionate, or forgiving," Merriam-Webster says "1 a : to become less severe, harsh, or strict usually from reasons of humanity b : to cease resistance : GIVE IN; 2 : LET UP, SLACKEN"

So "let up, slacken" does not indicate a change of mind, nor need "become more lenient/less severe" imply this, either.

But let's discuss Num. 23:19 further, where I think we have a clear indication of what "nacham" should mean, for God has promised, and will not "nacham," and we know that Balak was not hoping God would relent from judgment, nor was he hoping God would be grieved or comforted, or that he would repent from sin, rather he was hoping God would change his mind.

And as mentioned previously, Balaam said this is not possible, for God gave his word, and for him to change his mind, would be to lie.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[godrulz]

We agree in this context God said He would not change His mind. It does not mean He could not change it metaphysically and absolutely. Other contexts show that He did. We agree on this verse, but cannot extrapolate it to a pagan philosophical concept that God is static and unchanging in every way.

 

[Clete]

This is a stretch. Try to reconsider this Clete.

What's a stretch; the idea that the world might repent, or the idea that if they do God will also?

If you are refering to the former then I agree, it is a stretch in the extreme, but if you mean the latter then it isn't a stretch at all.

 

[GuySmiley]

"Relent" need not imply this, though, dictionary.com says this means "To become more lenient, compassionate, or forgiving," Merriam-Webster says "1 a : to become less severe, harsh, or strict usually from reasons of humanity b : to cease resistance : GIVE IN; 2 : LET UP, SLACKEN"

So "let up, slacken" does not indicate a change of mind, nor need "become more lenient/less severe" imply this, either.

It seems to me that God meant to be more harsh, less compassionate, or more judgemental, then became more lenient, compassionate, or forgiving. I don't see here how God is not changing His mind by useing the word 'relent.' He obviously changed his will from one state to another.

Greg

 

[Clete]

It seems to me that God meant to be more harsh, less compassionate, or more judgemental, then became more lenient, compassionate, or forgiving. I don't see here how God is not changing His mind by useing the word 'relent.' He obviously changed his will from one state to another.

Greg

Regardless, the word in the original language is the exact same word used hundreds of times in the Bible which is translated "repent" and "repent" is the correct translation of the word. People sometimes have a allergic reaction to using the word repent in relation to God because they associate repentance with sin but that has nothing to do with the meaning of the word itself. Repent simply means to change direction, to turn around. If you are going in one direction and you turn and go another (especially if it is a complete about face) then you have repented. And it isn't always used in relation to the mind; it can and is used to mean a physical changing of direction but the idea is always the same. In one way or another if this word is used it indicates some sort of CHANGE in one's heading; whether it's physical, mental, or spiritual it makes no difference, the same word applies and should be translated as "REPENT" not 'relent'. Relent means to slacken or to capitulate, this is not what the word in the original means at all. God does not capitulate or slacken like some silly public school teacher.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[GuySmiley]

Regardless, the word in the original language is the exact same word used hundreds of times in the Bible which is translated "repent" and "repent" is the correct translation of the word.

I whole-heartedly agree, but I think that even in the case lee was trying to make, the word 'relent' still shows that God changed His mind.

People just dont want to think of God as doing that because people think of our human ways of changing our mind as being wishy-washy. When I personally broke through that barrier to being able to think of God, as a perfect being, changing His mind, it made God more real to me. The concept of God as a living God is so much more meaningful to me.

Greg

 

[STONE]

Forwarded from battle royal thread

If there are an even number of men, 1/3 would be problematic. 1/3 of a pie does not mean an exact amount down to the molecular level. These judgments are within God's ability to bring to pass and foreknow. They do not specify the exact millisecond any given individual will die, for example.

So you are saying the actual number is close to 1/3, or approximate, no need to exagerate. How does God know 2000 or more years into the future that the number of free will individuals destroyed in rev 9:18 will not be 1/4 or 1/2? In such case that the number varied would He then be wrong? Or does he assure the number will be (at least close to) 1/3?