Please see Styx thread on the Registered Shipmates consultation for the main discussion forums - your views are important, continues until April 4th.

Kerygmania: Does God change His mind ?

RublevRublev Shipmate
edited January 2022 in Limbo
The psalmist says, 'Our God is in heaven and does as He pleases' (Ps 115: 3).

However, Samuel tells Saul that God does not change His mind - but at the same time he informs him that God has changed His mind about who should be king of Israel.

'the Glory of Israel will not recant or change His mind; for He is not a mortal, that He should change His mind' (1 Sam 16: 29).

Who is more correct about God: the psalmist or Samuel?
«134

Comments

  • Jonah 3:10

    And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

    It sure looks here like God had planned to do one thing, then changed his mind and did something else, based on what the people of Ninevah did.
  • There are actually several such passages in Scripture. Of course, this is a key proposition of open and process theologies-- that God is "changeable." That doesn't mean God is capricious (hence the passages that speak to God's "unchanging nature"). It means (arguably) that in a free world, God can be moved by the free choices of his free creatures (as in Ninevah).

    Most Christians of course have a problem with this-- we have been so influenced by the notion of God's immutability that the notion of God changing his mind, even in response to human action, is unthinkable for us. And yet, almost all Christians pray as if God is changeable-- as if the future is open-- even if we tag on a hasty "if it be your will..." at the end.
  • I'm not sure Jonah is a very binding example. It was recently pointed out to me that spiritually, the book of Jonah has everything back to front - God repents, the pagan Ninivites repent, the pagan sailors pray to God while Jonah is in the depths of the ship. In fact the only person who doesn't really repent is Jonah himself. While there is obviously a serious point to the narrative, all this inversion could be seen as being for comic effect. It's a bit like the Bible's Punch & Judy show.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Jonah 3:10

    And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

    It sure looks here like God had planned to do one thing, then changed his mind and did something else, based on what the people of Ninevah did.

    Joel 2:13
    "Rend your heart, and not your garments, and turn unto the Lord your God: for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repenteth him of the evil."

    It's another case of us thinking we can tell God what He can and can't do.
  • I think God's immutability could still hold if one thinks that God's decisions take place in eternity, outside of time. He already knows everything that everyone has ever done or will do. Therefore, all his decisions were already made since the beginning of time (and were never really "made," just as the Son was never created). As best as humans can understand the explanations for these decisions in Scripture, those explanations could mean that God's nature would generally mean that He would make a certain decision (punish - I prefer the term discipline) but that in the context of a particular situation (repentance, prayer, or something else, perhaps something we do not fully understand), He makes a different decision (showing mercy), while being consistent with His nature. He always knew about all these contexts, though.

    Of course, if someone just wants to rely on the language in Scripture and not the greater body of Christian writings, teachings, and philosophy framed to explain Scripture, then the concept of God's immutability may not be important, or may (someone may decide) be false.
  • That sounds close to a description of the doctrine of predestination. God is omniscient but His grace and mercy always incline towards the redemption of human failure. So medieval theologians thought that the Fall of Adam and Eve was a blessed fault because it then prepared the way for Christ and Mary. I agree there is a dynamic interaction between divine will and grace - and human will and prayer.
  • I think God's immutability could still hold if one thinks that God's decisions take place in eternity, outside of time. He already knows everything that everyone has ever done or will do. Therefore, all his decisions were already made since the beginning of time (and were never really "made," just as the Son was never created). As best as humans can understand the explanations for these decisions in Scripture, those explanations could mean that God's nature would generally mean that He would make a certain decision (punish - I prefer the term discipline) but that in the context of a particular situation (repentance, prayer, or something else, perhaps something we do not fully understand), He makes a different decision (showing mercy), while being consistent with His nature. He always knew about all these contexts, though.

    There are problems theologically with positing God as outside of time (and this is a point debated by religious physicists-- but that discussion is way above my pay grade).
    Of course, if someone just wants to rely on the language in Scripture and not the greater body of Christian writings, teachings, and philosophy framed to explain Scripture, then the concept of God's immutability may not be important, or may (someone may decide) be false.

    I would agree that the concept of immutability is not found in Scripture, but it quite prevalent in extrabiblical lit. The question, as always, is how much weight to give that extrabiblical lit-- i.e. how do we weigh tradition v Scripture?

    I think immutability-- with the implication of impassivity-- is completely incompatible not only with Scripture but with the larger arc of historic Christian witness (tradition) as well as our experience of God. But I do think there is a way to harmonize God's sovereignty with God's "changeableness". Trying to avoid getting into the familiar, tangled weeds of Open Theism, I would just say that a sovereign deity can still choose to create a universe where the future is at least partially open and determined by the truly free choices of truly free creatures. God still moves and acts in that open universe to accomplish His purposes and insure God's promised future (prophesy). Which is why you see "repentance" or "changing his mind" language in reference to God-- those instances always come in conjunction with the consistency of God's character and purpose-- they are part of the ways the Sovereign God is adjusting and adapting to human choices-- all in alignment with the unchanging nature of God's character-- loving, gracious, self-giving.

  • For what it's worth, here's my 2017 formulation of that sort of idea:
    My own, doubtless terribly wobbly, working theory of divine sovreignty is what I, doubtless terribly inaccurately, refer to as the quantum one.

    I imagine God to have marked out some key milestones, as a minimum the beginnng, the middle (ie Christ) and the end - and perhaps at least some other vague 'nodes' along the way - but not to have staked out all the intervening events.

    We can be assured that all the particles of history will travel through those three points, but (by virtue of the design and not by virtue of any incapability on his part) God does not foreordain and cannot foreknow all the intervening events; they exist in an unknown state until they are observed by the passage of time.

    That's my eccentric, home-grown hermeneutic to reconcile divine sovreignty and free will. It also leaves room for at least some trustworthy predictive prophecy, about the milestones.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    I think I agree with @cliffdweller and don't agree with @stonespring on this.

    It seems to me that doctrines of both God's immutability and his impassivity are yet more examples of human thinking that 'our ideas about God means he has to be like this'. At the core of that is the assumption that if God doesn't fit in with the perceptions of him that our somewhat finite and inadequate brains have worked out, then it must be God who is wrong rather than us.
  • One needn't impute impure motives to people who think God doesn't change his mind. The scriptures are, as on so many things, ambivalent.

    Numbers 23:19:
    God is not a man, that He should lie,
    Nor a son of man, that He should repent.
    Has He said, and will He not do?
    Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    That scripture is ambivalent is a very good reason for not insisting on a doctrine that you, or people you side with, have worked out must be correct because otherwise it would make God inconsistent with himself.
  • One can work out doctrines, or one can let it be a mystery. Whichever way you go, you're going to piss people off.
  • There is a book by Stephen Brams called "Biblical Games" in which he applies two-person game theory to various situations in the Bible. In some cases, God is one of the two players, and the humans occasionally make headway against God. For instance, God plans to destroy Sodom. Abraham starts bargaining with him: what if there are 50 virtuous men in Sodom? God says he will spare Sodom for the sake of 50. Abraham bargains him down to 10. God does appear to be changing His mind.
  • A better question is, does God learn from God;s actions? I think the proof is what happens during the flood. God thought God could start over again but wiping everything off the face of the earth except for a select remnant. Yet, what did Noah do first thing he got of the boat? He got drunk and did other things, subject to interpretation. God then realized God could not get rid of sin and had to come up with another plan of salvation. Then we have the history of the Hebrews which did not work out too well, then we have the Word becoming flesh and we are still waiting to see how this project will end.

    To the question, though, does God change God's mind? Yes.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    As God evolves He does less and less. Now not at all of course.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    For a para-eternal entity His evolution over a few hundred years is remarkably fast...
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    As God evolves He does less and less. Now not at all of course.

    Pardon?
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    edited February 2019
    We're putting our rickety old bodged cart before the transcendent Horse.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    One needn't impute impure motives to people who think God doesn't change his mind. The scriptures are, as on so many things, ambivalent.

    Numbers 23:19:
    God is not a man, that He should lie,
    Nor a son of man, that He should repent.
    Has He said, and will He not do?
    Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?

    It seems the things God will repent of (eg. curses and damnations) are different from the things God will never repent of (eg. blessings, promises.)
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    So God cursed and blesses?
  • @Martin54 is there any way you could possibly proceed by assertion, even if only of your doubts, rather than by asking enigmatic questions?
  • This isn't an entirely unpacked idea in my head - but I'm wondering if there is some discernable difference between the OT and NT.

    I'm thinking quite a lot of prayers in the OT can be said to be appeals for God to change his mind - or at least to start acting to change things that at present are not changing.

    Whereas prayer in the gospels seems to be more about acceptance of the reality of life.

    Even the ideas of love for enemies and forgiving wrong appears to start from a position of acceptance of the reality of the situation and ask instead for a personal changed perspective rather that trying to change the deity's mind about (I don't know) turning them to dust, making them pay or even making them quiver in fear and stop being so horrid.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    Nowt enigmatic about it E. But if you insist. God neither blesses (bloody predictive text keeps insisting on 'd'!) nor curses obviously. Of that I have no doubt. We made that up about Him. For similar reasons of cognitive bias we want to believe it. Bluddy 'ell mr cheesy! We don't agree do we?
  • Asking the question makes it sound like you don't have a set idea on the subject when in fact you demonstrably do.

    If you think it's "obvious" that we made up any idea of God blessing or cursing, what grounds do you have for believing anything the Bible allegedly tells us about God is anything more than anthropocentric projection?
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Nowt enigmatic about it E. But if you insist. God neither blesses (bloody predictive text keeps insisting on 'd'!) nor curses obviously. Of that I have no doubt. We made that up about Him. For similar reasons of cognitive bias we want to believe it. Bluddy 'ell mr cheesy! We don't agree do we?

    I've no idea, given that I've given up reading your posts if I don't understand the first sentence.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Nowt enigmatic about it E.
    Yes, there is. You’re asking the rest of us to guess what you’re point is.

  • Martin54 the text that summarises this point is the Lord's covenant with the Israelites in Deut 30: 19, 'I call heaven and earth to witness against you today that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Choose life that you and your descendants may live.'

    So God offers us life and blessings and even urges us to choose them. But the freewill choice still remains our own.
  • mr cheesymr cheesy Shipmate
    edited February 2019
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Asking the question makes it sound like you don't have a set idea on the subject when in fact you demonstrably do.

    If you think it's "obvious" that we made up any idea of God blessing or cursing, what grounds do you have for believing anything the Bible allegedly tells us about God is anything more than anthropocentric projection?

    I'm not sure if I think it is obvious but I guess I'm pretty sure God is not like that, and if he is then he isn't worth spending a lot of time worrying about.

    I'm increasingly thinking that if Jesus is the vision of humanity we are supposed to emulate and desire to be like, that is because he is the perfect image of the deity.

    So for me it makes no sense for the deity to do things he tells us not to do, and acts in ways we should not act.

    And I can see that OT passages which portray him as a kind of Hobbesian Leviathan* (or even an Olympian god) scaring people into better behaviours - because there is someone who notices, even if you think your dirty secrets are hidden - have a certain value, I increasingly can't believe in a God like that, and am therefore forced to conclude that those scriptures are not accurate.

    Fwiw, I think the projection of a deity who destroys enemies is much more in keeping with base human nature than a deity who is loving.

    * Which I appreciate is ironic, in this context
  • Our ideas about God will change, as we do. And in any case, God is inexhaustible.

    But change? We are not in a place to exclude that possibility. And how could we tell?
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    How does a para-eternal being change?
  • No, wait. Your turn to answer a question (above).
  • RublevRublev Shipmate
    edited February 2019
    I think the Incarnation of Christ as human must have had an impact upon God. Paul suggests this by saying that Christ intercedes for us at the right hand of God (Rom 8: 34). And there is also the Pentecost event. You could start a new thread on the question of if and how God can change.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    No, wait. Your turn to answer a question (above).

    Could you @ whoever you are expecting to answer? I thought you were asking me.
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    This isn't an entirely unpacked idea in my head - but I'm wondering if there is some discernable difference between the OT and NT.

    There is, however, a lot of God's steadfastness and unchangingness in the Old Testament as well as the New, particularly in the Psalms. "For his steadfast love endureth forever."

    Other proof texts:
    • “For I the Lord do not change" --Malachi 3:6
    • "God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?" - Numbers 23:19
    • "The Lord of hosts has sworn: “As I have planned, so shall it be, and as I have purposed, so shall it stand," - Isaiah 14:24
    • "The counsel of the Lord stands forever, the plans of his heart to all generations." --Psalm 33:11

  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Asking the question makes it sound like you don't have a set idea on the subject when in fact you demonstrably do.

    If you think it's "obvious" that we made up any idea of God blessing or cursing, what grounds do you have for believing anything the Bible allegedly tells us about God is anything more than anthropocentric projection?

    I want the incarnation to be so. In the face of rationality.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    Rublev wrote: »
    I think the Incarnation of Christ as human must have had an impact upon God. Paul suggests this by saying that Christ intercedes for us at the right hand of God (Rom 8: 34). And there is also the Pentecost event. You could start a new thread on the question of if and how God can change.

    It's meaningless.
  • You should read the Book of Ecclesiastes. You'd like it.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    edited February 2019
    @mr cheesy I was asking @Martin54 . I usually check the revised order of posting once my comment is published and name the person I'm answering if they are not the person immediately above me.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    I want the incarnation to be so. In the face of rationality.

    So in summary, your position is cognitive bias is OK if it favours the Incarnation, but not if it postulates God blessing and/or cursing? This seems far from "obvious" to me.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    How does a para-eternal being change?
    It would help to know what “para-eternal” is supposed to mean.

  • Eutychus wrote: »
    Asking the question makes it sound like you don't have a set idea on the subject when in fact you demonstrably do.
    This is what's known as being disingenuous (if my understanding of the word is correct.)
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    Hey. Let's assume you're my boss or my wife. So it's all my fault. Sorry. Moving on. My fully acknowledged cognitive bias is all I have between me and atheism. Do you begrudge me that? I'm not entitled to it unless I believe all manner of stuff we made up?
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    edited February 2019
    Rublev wrote: »
    You should read the Book of Ecclesiastes. You'd like it.

    What makes you think I haven't? (Oooh & E, I have OK?)
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Hey. Let's assume you're my boss or my wife. So it's all my fault. Sorry. Moving on.
    This response never works with my wife. She won't let it go until I've thought it through, and I've come to realise she's absolutely right.
    My fully acknowledged cognitive bias is all I have between me and atheism. Do you begrudge me that?
    No, I don't begrudge you it at all. What I'm gently trying to point out, though, is that while you think you've thought all this through (and certainly give that impression), in fact you haven't really (cf my previous paragraph).

    Your world seems to be split into absolute rationality on the one hand and "cognitive bias" and "made-up stuff" on the other. I think this is a mistake. I think you're missing the Spirit and refusing to acknowledge his existence and presence despite your avowed experience to the contrary. It's my best assessment that what lies between you and atheism is not your cognitive bias but the indwelling Spirit - who may not be as the worst perversions you suffered in the past would have you believe.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    What makes you think I haven't? (Oooh & E, I have ,OK?)

    On a point of order following on from @mr cheesy's earlier comment, it helps if after you've hit "post comment" you hit F5 or reopen the thread on your phone/tablet to see what cross-posts there might have been. This would make it a lot easier to untangle some bits of your answers. Working out what you were answering there took me quite a while...
  • There are a range of voices in the Bible. Ecclesiastes is the voice of pessimism and the rabbis debated including it in the canon because its theology is so unconventional. But it still has its own place to speak about God and humanity, and matters of life and faith. Perhaps it is a text that has become even more relevant in the questioning post modern age.

    An army chaplain serving in the Vietnam War noticed that whenever he had to address the traumatised and cynical young soldiers they would not listen - except when he spoke from Ecclesiastes. They thought that he knew what he was talking about when he said that life was meaningless.

    There are times when we all feel disillusioned with life and wonder what it is all about. The psalms are quite candid with God about how let down the speaker feels. But they still include God in the conversation.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    On a point of order following on from @mr cheesy's earlier comment, it helps if after you've hit "post comment" you hit F5 or reopen the thread on your phone/tablet to see what cross-posts there might have been. This would make it a lot easier to untangle some bits of your answers. Working out what you were answering there took me quite a while...
    Alternatively, hit “Save Draft,” reload the thread to see if there have been additional posts, edit if needed, then post.

  • mousethief wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    This isn't an entirely unpacked idea in my head - but I'm wondering if there is some discernable difference between the OT and NT.

    There is, however, a lot of God's steadfastness and unchangingness in the Old Testament as well as the New, particularly in the Psalms. "For his steadfast love endureth forever."

    Other proof texts:
    • “For I the Lord do not change" --Malachi 3:6
    • "God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?" - Numbers 23:19
    • "The Lord of hosts has sworn: “As I have planned, so shall it be, and as I have purposed, so shall it stand," - Isaiah 14:24
    • "The counsel of the Lord stands forever, the plans of his heart to all generations." --Psalm 33:11

    Without going into ancient languages, I'm not sure I'm on strong ground but I wonder if there might be a difference in some of the thoughts/words here.

    Again, I might be entirely wrong here - but I can think of occasions where I can have a long-term plan but be prepared to haggle over details.

    So I might be telling my family about my plans for a worldwide holiday. My daughter might say "don't do that, it is really daft at your age, haven't you got better things to be doing you stupid old fart.."

    And I might reply "No, sorry darling. I've made my mind up and there is nothing you could possible boy say to change my mind.."

    And then (after some hours) she will eventually give up trying to persuade me and might say something like

    "Ok, you fool. At least change your itinerary so that you don't travel to Libya.."

    And I might say "oh ok I suppose so"

    --

    One can, in normal language, be steadfast in plans whilst still be able to be talked into changing minds.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Hey. Let's assume you're my boss or my wife. So it's all my fault. Sorry. Moving on.
    This response never works with my wife. She won't let it go until I've thought it through, and I've come to realise she's absolutely right.
    My fully acknowledged cognitive bias is all I have between me and atheism. Do you begrudge me that?
    No, I don't begrudge you it at all. What I'm gently trying to point out, though, is that while you think you've thought all this through (and certainly give that impression), in fact you haven't really (cf my previous paragraph).

    Your world seems to be split into absolute rationality on the one hand and "cognitive bias" and "made-up stuff" on the other. I think this is a mistake. I think you're missing the Spirit and refusing to acknowledge his existence and presence despite your avowed experience to the contrary. It's my best assessment that what lies between you and atheism is not your cognitive bias but the indwelling Spirit - who may not be as the worst perversions you suffered in the past would have you believe.

    I want to catch the next train to Gare du Nord. But they ain't runnin' are they?

    You give me the hope of hope. Don't worry. I take full responsibility.
  • Take courage: in addition to the Spirit, salvation, and hope, are still to be found on your side of the Channel too.
Sign In or Register to comment.