If God Changes His Mind, So Can I

The following was written by, and posted with permission, by Drew McLeod

I suffer from chronic back pain. I also believe in a God who heals. But these truths eventually led me to stop praying for healing. Later, a separate truth helped me to restart. Christians can often get into heated discussions about whether God still performs miracles and heals today but this is not what will be discussed here. I would like to think that most Christians believe that God can and does heal but that also that sometimes his answer is “no” or “not yet”.

The reason I mention my back is because it is often a daily reminder to me that sometimes God says “no”. I have prayed and prayed for it. Other people with more faith than me have prayed for it. It has come right for seasons and then gone completely out of whack in others. Finally, one day, after praying not only for my back but also for healing for many other people (including my dear, sweet grandmother who I also asked a word-of-faith friend of mine to pray for but passed when I was away from home in India) and consistently getting what seemed like “no’s” or “not yet’s” I decided, in a perceived Holy Defiance, that I would refuse to pray for healing for myself or anyone else since I already knew God’s answer on the matter. I continued to pray often for other things for God to draw people to himself, comfort people with his presence, help me to be a good husband, etc. but I had decided I would leave the “healing prayers” to other people. I’m sure some of this came from a place of some unrighteous anger towards God but I also felt like he could handle a pouty little child of his if it turned out that I was wrong.

One day last year, several weeks after finding out some of the most joyous news of our life (that we were pregnant with our first child) and maybe 3-4 weeks into my “healing prayer fast”, my wife was having some issues and there was no small amount of tears shed over the fact that we might be losing (or had already lost) Baby. I remember the night that I prayed for healing again for the first time. I begged God, “If you’ll sustain Baby and heal it, I promise to always say at least one prayer for every single healing prayer request I hear from here on.” I thought maybe God would change his mind about his “no’s” that he had been giving me. This brings me to the Scriptures on the matter…

As somewhat of a “Biblical literalist”, I had generally always believed that God “changed his mind” about things. The prediction of Hezekiah’s soon coming death is one of my favorite examples of God changing his mind in this way (Is 38:1). If it’s true that God cannot lie and that he told Hezekiah, “This is what the Lord says: ‘Set your house in order, for you are about to die; you will not recover,’” then there must be some sense in which God was planning for Hezekiah to die. Later on, Hezekiah’s repentant tears appear to change God’s mind, “I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; surely I will heal you. On the third day you shall go up to the house of the Lord. And I will add to your days fifteen years.” God sees our tears. He saw Hezekiah’s and chose to “add” fifteen years to his life. If Hezekiah’s life was pre-planned in meticulous detail by God, how would he have “added” these years to his life?

In Exodus, something similar happens when God says, “The Lord also said to Moses: “I have seen this people, and they are indeed a stiff-necked people. Now leave me alone, so that my anger can burn against them and I can destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation” (32:9-10). I would like to think that most normal readers also don’t believe God is bluffing here and that he was planning to destroy the Israelites for their rebellion and do a sort of “soft-reboot” with Moses and a few others. After Moses appeals to God’s promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and his reputation among the unbelieving Gentile nations, it says the following, “So the Lord relented concerning the disaster he had said he would bring on his people.” [You can see an extended explanation of how God changes his mind/relents about things he is currently planning in Jeremiah 18:1-11. You may want to pause and read this passage now if you’re not familiar with it] From this point in the story, God further responds to Moses’ intercession with a few hotly debated words, “I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion” (33:19). Remember, this is in response to Moses’ intercessory prayers. Before, God had planned on destroying the Israelites and starting over. He’s promising to stick with them despite their rebellion and to “bless all nations” (Gen 12:3) through them and their “Seed” who would ultimately be Jesus Christ (Gal 3:16).

Much later in Israel’s history, Jonah is sent as a prophet to his enemies, the Ninevites. In his reluctant, bitter warning to them from God it is recorded, “In forty days Nineveh will be demolished!” The king of Nineveh seemed to understand that even God’s decisions on the matter were not pre-made regarding the prophecy that Jonah announced. He believed there could be a divine underlying motivation for it being made known to the whole city, that perhaps a citywide repentance might bring about a delay or cancellation of the announced judgment saying, “Who knows? God may turn and relent; he may turn from his burning anger so that we will not perish.” And all of this from a pagan king who received no explicitly stated condition in the prophecy!

More discussion could be had on this subject but however you would like to frame God’s omniscience and how it works, it would certainly seem to me that God changes his mind and thereby his plans for his creatures in response to their pleas and cries to him for mercy. This is exactly what I did that night as I lay next to my wife in bed weeping about an unforeseen future possibility of a life without our Baby Girl. I plead for his mercy, because I didn’t know what he was going to do, or what he might do, in response to my prayers. It could be that I might persuade him to change his mind about something he was planning. So, I prayed, “God please heal our baby. Have mercy on us, your children.” After a torturous two weeks of waiting for our next scheduled ultrasound scan, we saw her little heartbeat and I felt a weight lift off my shoulders. I cried tears of joy for probably only the second time in my life. Maybe God changed his mind. I can’t really say and maybe I’ll never know. All I know is I had vowed to never pray for healing again and acting on my persuasion from the Scriptures may have changed the future for our little family. As a result, I’m holding up my end of the bargain. Everyone that needs healing gets prayer because, ultimately, we can’t know what God might decide to do or not do in response. His plans for us are subject to change.

Now, our little girl, Phoebe Romine (whose middle name she got from her grandmother and late great grandmother) has a life that is full of possibilities and her dad prays for her every night because God still sees our tears as he saw Hezekiah’s and is often moved to change his mind. And if I didn’t believe that God indeed still changes his mind, I may not have changed mine.

“Rejoice always, pray constantly, give thanks in everything; for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus.”  ~1 Thess 5:16-18

“Listen to your servant’s prayer and his petition, Lord my God, so that you may hear the cry and the prayer that your servant prays before you…” ~2 Chronicles 6:19

91 thoughts on “If God Changes His Mind, So Can I

  1. Soteriology 101 is now promoting Open Theism. Readers should know that this is outside the bounds of Christian orthodoxy and the Baptist Faith and Message.

    1. So, an article quoting the Bible where God said he changed his mind is promoting Open Theism? Talk about answering back to God.

    2. BIRRAND…, Nice try! But it backfires on you, because it appears YOU are the one saying that the Bible promotes Open Theism.
      Because as Eric pointed out, these are God’s words, not man’s, and you call it “open theism.”

    3. I’m not an Open Theist, but it’s hardly outside of Christian orthodoxy. In fact, any rational person could make a stronger Scriptural case for it than they could for Calvinism.

      1. Sorry Paul, I don’t want to mis-label you. I have only heard these arguments from an open theist perspective before. Forgive me for speaking too soon.

      2. Paul Durham writes, “I’m not an Open Theist, but it’s hardly outside of Christian orthodoxy. In fact, any rational person could make a stronger Scriptural case for it than they could for Calvinism. ”

        Calvinism says that God has infinite understanding.
        Open Theism says that God does not have infinite understanding.

        I think I could made a stronger case for Calvinism on this: “Great is our Lord, and mighty in power; His understanding is infinite.” (Psalm 147)

      3. rhutchin,

        Your comment about open theism. I’m not gonna quote it cuz I’m on my phone. But…

        Are you familiar with the theory of BIBLE CODE?

        Some Jews were looking into that several years ago. By the way… since the bible is primarily written by Jews, what do the Jews believe about free will? Just because we lowly gentiles are Christians doesn’t mean gentiles are experts at DETERMINING, if you will, Gods way of thinking.

        Bible code. The premise is free will. Free will choice on our part.

        God knows all of the options available. God knows the spider web of the end result, which not only affects you, but several people on down the line to infinity. A spider web.

        We choose a particular option. On our own.

        So, we have free will, while God is omni whatever.

        I was interested in bible code, but it didn’t get much traction, cuz not many were interested.

        They claim that our individual personal life is written in the HEBREW lettering system, by a code, skipping a certain number of Hebrew letters on a constant basis. Such as skipping every 4th letter as an example.

        They did provide a bit of evidence, by showing the election of Al Gore and George Bush.

        But what got people really interested, is that YHVH is consistent in leviticus by a certain number of skips.

        Anyway, free will and God’s omni stuff, all in one.

        Just a thought.

        Ed Chapman

      4. I don’t see that word in the bible. As a matter of fact, i don’t see any of the academic words in the bible that you people speak of. I can’t pronounce most of those words, let alone spell them. I see God giving us free will, no matter what big words you use to impress thyself with academic words that no one can comprehend without a six year college education.

      5. rhutchin
        Calvinism says that God has infinite understanding.

        br.d
        Yea – infinite understanding of sins, and evils he conceives and humans he designs specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire
        As John Calvin says: “for his good pleasure”

        rhutchin
        Open Theism says that God does not have infinite understanding.

        br.d
        I know enough about Open Theism to know this statement is misleading

        Open Theism – Wikipedia:
        God’s knowledge is dynamic and God’s providence flexible. Rather than a future that is a singular, fixed trajectory, open theism sees it as a plurality of branching possibilities, with some possibilities becoming settled as time moves forward. Thus, the future as well as God’s knowledge of it is open (hence “open” theism).

        In this statement above – the future as a singular, fixed trajectory is a reference to Theological Determinism
        As Peter Van Inwagen states it in the Oxford Handbook of Free Will
        -quote
        Determinism may now be defined: it is the thesis that there is at any instant exactly one physically possible future.

        In other words – in a world in which every movement of nature is 100% predestined in advance – it is a logical impossibility to predestine something to be both TRUE and FALSE at the same time. Thus a person cannot be predestined to walk to the left and walk to the right at the same time. Only one of these can be predestined – which logically rules out AP “Alternative Possibilities”.

        And thus – Theological Determinism logically rules out a plurality of branching possibilities.
        Because only that which is infallibly decreed to come to pass is made available or permitted.

        Thus if a human, when in the course of choice-making – has the perception of multiple option(s) available to choose from.
        All options outside of that one singular, fixed trajectory having been infallibly decreed to come to pass – exists only as illusions.

      6. br.d writes, “In this statement above – the future as a singular, fixed trajectory is a reference to Theological Determinism….Theological Determinism logically rules out a plurality of branching possibilities….if a human, when in the course of choice-making – has the perception of multiple option(s) available to choose from. All options outside of that one singular, fixed trajectory having been infallibly decreed to come to pass – exists only as illusions.”

        That’s the consequence of God having infinite understanding; it rules out a plurality of branching possibilities. Thus, The Open Theist must deny that God has infinite understanding in order to advance his false doctrine of a plurality of branching possibilities in the future.

        As to the illusion part. When Peter said to Jesus, “I will lay down my life for Your sake.” Jesus could have responded, “In your dreams, Peter, in your dreams.” Instead, Jesus said, ““Will you lay down your life for My sake? Most assuredly, I say to you, the rooster shall not crow till you have denied Me three times.”

      7. br.d
        In Calvinism – if a human, when in the course of choice-making – has the perception of multiple option(s) available to choose from. All options outside of that one singular, fixed trajectory having been infallibly decreed to come to pass – exist only as illusions.

        rhutchin
        That’s the consequence of God having infinite understanding; it rules out a plurality of branching possibilities.

        br.d
        Firstly:
        Thank you for affirming that in Calvinism any human perception of multiple options in choices-making are ILLUSIONS.

        Secondly:
        Plurality of branching possibilities is only ruled out by Theological Determinism
        As Peter Van Inwagen States
        -quote
        Determinism may now be defined: it is the thesis that there is at any instant exactly one physically possible future.

        Middle-knowledge allows divine understanding of what a creature WOULD do within any circumstances without predetermining a future having only one singular, fixed trajectory.

        Dr. William Lane Craig
        -quote
        A satisfactory theory of divine providence, which affirms both God’s sovereignty over all things and human libertarian freedom.
        Such an account is ….rooted in the doctrine of Middle knowledge.

        rhutchin
        Thus, The Open Theist must deny that God has infinite understanding in order to advance his false doctrine of a plurality of branching possibilities in the future.

        br.d
        Another “human philosophical” failure in thinking – and no surprise! :-]

        Failure of False dichotomy:
        A failure of reasoning. … an author creates an artificial sense that there are only two possible alternatives in a situation.

        rhutchin
        As to the illusion part. When Peter said to Jesus, “I will lay down my life for Your sake.” ….

        br.d
        How much more irrational can one get!
        This is not an example of illusion – its an example of overt self-confidence.

        A better example would be rhutchin stopping at a 4 way corner – having the ILLUSION that the choice within his brain has not already been predestined for him by an external mind in advance.

        And then having a second ILLUSION that he has more than one one singular, fixed trajectory available to him.
        In other words – the ILLUSION of multiple options in choice making.

      8. br.d writes, “Middle-knowledge allows divine understanding of what a creature WOULD do within any circumstances without predetermining a future having only one singular, fixed trajectory.”

        Of course, middle-knowledge deals with God’s knowledge before He creates the universe. Once God choices the universe He will create, and creates the universe, Calvinism describes the universe that unfolds.

      9. rhutchin
        Of course, middle-knowledge deals with God’s knowledge before He creates the universe.

        br.d
        Which does not LOGICALLY equate to a future limited to one singular, fixed trajectory where every human choice is determined *FOR* him – at the foundation of the world.

        rhutchin
        Once God choices the universe He will create, and creates the universe, Calvinism describes the universe that unfolds.

        br.d
        Yes – we already know this as Calvinism – predicated on Universal Divine Causal Determinism.

        A world in which every human impulse/choice is predestined in advance – resolving to one singular, fixed trajectory.
        In which any perception of a plurality of branching possibilities exist only as illusions.

        Thus Alternative Possibilities outside of what is infallibly decreed – are ruled out.
        Thus the human ability to Be/Do otherwise than what is infallibly decreed – is ruled out.

        Thus Calvin’s god predetermined Adam’s choice in the garden – limiting it to one singular, fixed trajectory.

        Calvi-Fornia:
        You can check out any time you like – but you can never leave :-]

      10. rhutchin: “Of course, middle-knowledge deals with God’s knowledge before He creates the universe.”
        br.d: “Which does not LOGICALLY equate to a future limited to one singular, fixed trajectory where every human choice is determined *FOR* him – at the foundation of the world.”

        Even Molinism recognizes that God chose one world out of all possible worlds to create. That world God chose to create equates to a future limited to one singular, fixed trajectory where every human choice was determined – at the foundation of the world. Even you will not argue against that even as you can never argue against Calvinism.

      11. rhutchin
        Even Molinism recognizes that God chose one world out of all possible worlds to create.
        That world God chose to create equates to a future limited to one singular, fixed trajectory where every human choice was determined – at the foundation of the world.

        br.d
        Well – you’ve made this silly claim before – and it obviously comes out of your personal philosophy.
        You’ve been challenged to provide any possible quote from any academic source to prove this silly claim.
        And since none exists – you’re left with your brain AUTO-MAGICALLY assuming whatever thought pops into the brain must be true.

        Nothing new with any of that! :-]

      12. br.d writes, “You’ve been challenged to provide any possible quote from any academic source to prove this silly claim.”

        One need only go to the Molinism.com website and read about it.

      13. br.d
        You’ve been challenged to provide any possible quote from any academic source to prove this silly claim.”

        rhutchin
        One need only go to the Molinism.com website and read about it.

        br.d
        Ok easy enough then:
        Give us a quote from that website that EXPLICITLY states that Libertarian Freedom does not exist in Molinism

        Otherwise – everyone will recognize your claim as yet another manufacture ad-hoc theory
        What you call: i.e. human philosophy

        Good luck with that! :-]

      14. While anyone (silly enough) may be waiting for you to provide a quote from Molinism.com to prove your silly claim,

        I can easily provide a quote from that site:

        (December 5, 2019 – Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views – A Response to William Lane Craig’s Middle-Knowledge View)
        -quote
        I would argue that William Lane Craig offers the best understanding of divine providence via Molinism.

        William Lane Craig
        -quote
        Louis de Molina thought the central point of the Protestant Reformation was the denial of human libertarian freedom in favor of God’s being the all-determining reality. And so what Molina was constrained to do was to offer an alternative to Luther and Calvin that would affirm the same sort of sovereign divine control…but without denying libertarian freedom.

      15. William Lane Craig
        -quote
        “…what Molina was constrained to do was to offer an alternative to Luther and Calvin that would affirm the same sort of sovereign divine control…but without denying libertarian freedom.”

        It’s hard to deny an imaginary concept. Molina failed.

      16. William Lane Craig
        -quote
        “…what Molina was constrained to do was to offer an alternative to Luther and Calvin that would affirm the same sort of sovereign divine control…but without denying libertarian freedom.”

        rhutchin
        It’s hard to deny an imaginary concept. Molina failed.

        br.d
        Well – now you have your previous claim that Molinism rejects Libertarian Freedom – but does not reject Libertarian Freedom – and thus failed.

        Another good example of Calvinism’s definition of rational reasoning :-]

      17. br.d writes, “Give us a quote from that website that EXPLICITLY states that Libertarian Freedom does not exist in Molinism”

        “Thus, middle knowledge exists logically between [God’s natural knowledge and free knowledge] since it entails God’s knowledge of future contingents, counterfactuals, and counterfactuals of creaturely freedom. According to His middle knowledge, God was able to view a gambit of possible worlds and thus actualized one world most conducive to His purposes.”

      18. br.d
        Give us a quote from that website that EXPLICITLY states that Libertarian Freedom does not exist in Molinism

        rhutchin
        “Thus, middle knowledge exists logically between [God’s natural knowledge and free knowledge] since it entails God’s knowledge of future contingents, counterfactuals, and counterfactuals of creaturely freedom. According to His middle knowledge, God was able to view a gambit of possible worlds and thus actualized one world most conducive to His purposes.”

        br.d
        Well at least you’ve succeeded in providing a quote that doesn’t support your claim. 😉

        But in fact supports the opposite – since “creaturely freedom” is defined as “Libertarian Freedom” in Molinism.
        See William Lane Craig’s quote I provided.

        And here is yet another academic quote:

        Middle Knowledge – Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
        -quote
        This knowledge is seen by its proponents as the key to understanding the compatibility of divine providence and creaturely (libertarian) freedom

        Looks like your claim is “Manifestum Falsum” :-]

      19. br.d: “Well at least you’ve succeeded in providing a quote that doesn’t support your claim.’

        My claim was, “Even Molinism recognizes that God chose one world out of all possible worlds to create.” The quotation I provided states this. Just because neither you, nor Craig, can force libertarian free will into the Molinist system does not change the basic premise of Molinism – that God’s use of middle knowledge allowed Him to create that one world that accomplished His purposes. The alleged “Libertarian free will” that Molinism supposedly preserves only occurred in the mind of God prior to creation.

      20. rhutchin
        My claim was, “Even Molinism recognizes that God chose one world out of all possible worlds to create.”

        br.d
        Now you’re just being dishonest again.
        How am I not surprised! :-]

        Here is your FULL claim

        rhutchin
        April 22, 2020 at 1:22 pm
        Even Molinism recognizes that God chose one world out of all possible worlds to create. That world God chose to create equates to a future limited to one singular, fixed trajectory where every human choice was determined – at the foundation of the world.

        Here is wisdom:
        Never hold your breath waiting for a Calvinist to speak the WHOLE truth.

        SOT101 readers know – Calvinists often AUTO-MAGICALLY speak *AS-IF* they represent and speak for everyone.

        Its not what the Calvinist knows that gets him in trouble
        Its what he knows for sure – that just ain’t so! 😉

      21. br.d writes, “Here is your FULL claim
        rhutchin
        April 22, 2020 at 1:22 pm
        “Even Molinism recognizes that God chose one world out of all possible worlds to create. That world God chose to create equates to a future limited to one singular, fixed trajectory where every human choice was determined – at the foundation of the world.”

        I said, “God chose one world.” You added “That world God chose to create equates to a future limited to one singular, fixed trajectory where every human choice was determined – at the foundation of the world.” So, what changes??

      22. rhutchin
        I said, “God chose one world.” You added “That world God chose to create equates to a future limited to one singular, fixed trajectory where every human choice was determined – at the foundation of the world.” So, what changes??

        br.d
        Nah!
        I copied and pasted the whole of your claim.
        No way to wiggle out of it.

      23. br.d writes, “No way to wiggle out of it.”

        And no reason to wiggle out of it – no reason that you seem inclined to explain.

      24. br.d
        Nah!
        I copied and pasted your full claim
        No way to wiggle out of it.”

        rhutchin
        And no reason to wiggle out of it – no reason that you seem inclined to explain.

        br.d
        Now you’re just going into your greased pig mode again.
        So much for speaking with authority on Molinism! :-]

      25. br.d writes, “Otherwise – everyone will recognize your claim as yet another manufacture ad-hoc theory
        What you call: i.e. human philosophy”

        That which I cal “humanist philosophy” is any philosophy that ignores the Scriptures in its conclusions.

      26. rhutchin
        That which I cal “humanist philosophy” is any philosophy that ignores the Scriptures in its conclusions.

        br.d
        Nah!
        Its theological thinking that doesn’t conform to logical fallacies – claimed as “scriptural theology”. :-]

  2. Eric,

    You can expect our local Calvinists to present the two go-to verses in response to this.  They will be Numbers 32:19 and 1 Samuel 15:29. 
    Here is one of them….

    1 Samuel 15: 27 As Samuel turned to leave, Saul caught hold of the hem of his robe, and it tore. 28 Samuel said to him, “The Lord has torn the kingdom of Israel from you today and has given it to one of your neighbors—to one better than you. 29 He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a human being, that he should change his mind.”  

    In this context, Samuel is saying to Saul that God will not change His decision on this matter.  It is not Samuel giving eternal doctrine on the nature of God and His immutability!

    Kind of funny that they choose this passage as one of the two go-to passages, since in the very verse before Samuel says this:
    26 But Samuel said to him, “I will not go back with you. You have rejected the word of the Lord, and the Lord has rejected you as king over Israel!”  

    The Lord chose Saul and anointed him, but now changes that plan and rejects him — because of what Saul does.  Here (and many other places in Scripture) He certainly appears to be reacting to man’s decisions!  

    Ironic that it is in the very passage (preceding verse) that Calvinists use to “prove” that God does not change His mind!

    1. FOH
      The Lord chose Saul and anointed him, but now changes that plan and rejects him — because of what Saul does. Here (and many other places in Scripture) He certainly appears to be reacting to man’s decisions!

      br.d
      Nice post FOH!

      And how does the Calvinist brain create a virtual bridge between his doctrine of a 100% predetermined world – and the world of scripture?

      The same way the Solipsist brain creates a virtual bridge between his doctrine in which humans exist only as illusions – and the world of humans he interacts and lives with.

      Its called DOUBLE-THINK! :-]

  3. A great story and a great lesson. We just can’t see quite what’s the “full story” behind the circumstances we are faced with, can we?.

    I have also learned to “not ever give up” in prayer for whatever challenges come. Fervent prayer can mean a more persevering prayer for particular situations. Whether it be healing, or something else that we perceive requires a persistent commitment of time and energy.

    Luke 18:1-8
    Then Jesus told his disciples a parable to show them that they should always pray and not give up…

    I believe that God can be moved by militancy and indomitable spirit in our dependency on him – that sometimes God is testing us to see how much “fight” we have in us (e,g., the Syro-Phoenician woman, who wouldn’t take no for an answer (respectfully) – and Jesus praised her for her expectant faith (Matthew 15: 21-28)

    I would rather keep some things as a long-term, even lifetime prayer (e.g. salvation for children), than give up too early and miss what was needed to get the job done

  4. I’ve often heard that the three answers to prayer are Yes, No and Not Yet.

    Over the years, it has occurred to me that a fourth possibility is, “Because of choices I made setting up this world, and /or things going on you know nothing about, I’d like to say yes but can’t.”

    This answer is extremely uncomfortable for those Christians who hold to a Platonic rather than a Jewish conception of God.

    1. Carl
      This answer is extremely uncomfortable for those Christians who hold to a Platonic rather than a Jewish conception of God.

      br.d
      Carl – I am interested in learning more about the differences between a Platonic vs Jewish conception?
      Can you point me to any resources?

      Thanks in advance

      1. br.d,

        Just a little humor…

        You had said:
        “br.d
        Carl – I am interested in learning more about the differences between a Platonic vs Jewish conception?
        Can you point me to any resources?

        Thanks in advance”

        My response:
        Genesis thru Malachi.

        Or are you looking for a GENTILE author of a book on Amazon? Or something written in the year 1310 by some Catholic dude?

        Just humor.

      2. That is funny isn’t it.
        Yes – Genesis to Malachi would be pre-Platonic :-]

        And yes – probably post 300 AD Jewish thought did get some degree of Hellenization.
        And it is said that Gnostisism also was adopted by Alexandrian Jews

        So I suspect you are correct – it would makes sense that the difference would be marked “pre” and “post” a certain date.

      3. Yep. That’s my cryptic thought, too. Which reminds me… when i was stationed aboard the USS Midway in the mid 80’s. They had a saying. There is the right way, the wrong way, the navy way, or… the Midway.

  5. Love the heart behind this post not giving up in prayer for the things dear to our heart clearly Moses could have been prideful after all these people made him angry enough to break things… Exodus 32:19 NASB — It came about, as soon as Moses came near the camp, that he saw the calf and the dancing; and Moses’ anger burned, and he threw the tablets from his hands and shattered them at the foot of the mountain.

    And no I’m not an open theist either & what I actually see from the calvinist camp is continual name calling NOT cordial discourse nor are they convincing those who are here because they find the calvinist view lacking!! Your right Heather nice try, but you’ll find this isn’t the view this site defends…

    1. Hello Dobbie and welcome

      Some Calvinists see Billy Graham is a professing Calvinist – and some Calvinists argue that he isn’t.
      I know of no statement from Graham to confirm that one way or the other.

      But it is well known that A.W. Tozer rejects Calvinism.
      Although it is also understood that John Piper will occasionally quote Tozer.
      So perhaps some Piper followers are mislead into assuming Tozer a Calvinist.

      Blessings!

    2. To points to consider in the Billy Graham Association quote

      1) This is not a quote from Billy Graham himself – it is a statement written by someone within the Graham “association”.

      2) Notice these points in the statement
      A: From our perspective god does sometimes seem to change His mind
      B: The Bible tells us……he apparently changes his mind

      Firstly:
      Please find a verse in scripture which EXPLICITLY states that God only appears to change his mind – or that God deceives people into believing he changes his mind.

      Secondly:
      Why would God design the human brain to operate in double-mindedness – when scripture speaks against it?

      1. In one of the most cataclysmic events in world history , the incarnation, how did God change. How does that fit with the traditional view from the church fathers, the view of the trinity being a hypostatic union. And if God did not change then in being made flesh when really can we expect God to change. All the others must be anthromorphisms.

      2. Nice post Dobbie!

        Yes – I understand this as an issue especially raised by our Orthodox brethren concerning Calvinism.
        I’m not familiar with how the Calvinist responds – but all Calvinist answers typically follow the model of
        “Death by a thousand qualifications”. :-]

  6. Here is biblical evidence the future is not already set, with two verses by Jesus confirming prayer influences God’s decisions still to be made about future events.

    Verses – future is not completely set in God’s foreknowledge.

    Genesis 2:19 NKJV — Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name.

    Exodus 33:5 NKJV — For the LORD had said to Moses, “Say to the children of Israel, ‘You are a stiff-necked people. I could come up into your midst in one moment and consume you. Now therefore, take off your ornaments, that I may know what to do to you.’ ”

    Jeremiah 18:11 NKJV — “Now therefore, speak to the men of Judah and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, ‘Thus says the LORD: “Behold, I am fashioning a disaster and devising a plan against you. Return now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good.” ’ ”

    Matthew 24:20 NKJV — “And pray that your flight may not be in winter or on the Sabbath.”

    Matthew 26:39 NKJV — He went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, “O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will.”

    God’s mind conforms univocally with what He has revealed in His Word. It’s not locked in right now to seeing everything as “will be” or “is”. God’s foreknowledge is dynamic and includes also the truth about what “might be” or “might not be”.

    1. Was God waiting to see what Adam would call the animals, to know what they would be called?
    2. Was God waiting to see if Israel would take off their ornaments to know what He would do next?
    3. Was God saying He was devising a plan which means making decisions in His mind not made before about the future.
    4. Did Jesus affirm the disciples’ prayer could effect the setting of the date of Jerusalem’s fall, indicating Jesus’ believed it might not yet be set?
    5. Did Jesus pray about possible changes that could be made in God’s will because He knew such changes were indeed possible?

    The answer is an obvious “yes” to all those questions which are based on the clear meaning of those texts. If anyone thinks those texts don’t clearly show those self evident implications it must be because they are biased against the idea of the future being able to work out more than one way.
    ********
    The underlying issue in foreknowledge is if one is willing to believe that there are truly changes taking place in God’s mind in His knowing a “before” that then becomes known as an “after” and a “might be” that then becomes known as either a “will be” or a “could have been”.

    Calvinism rejects that such change in God’s mind exists before or after creation. Arminianism rejects that the idea of “before” creation means “before” and illogically accepts that changes in God’s mind exist and don’t exist at the same time. Molinism believes logically that some kind of change existed in God’s mind before creation but which cannot happen now after creation.

    Only Dynamic Omniscience offers the idea that God’s mind corresponds with the truth and sequence revealed in His Word univocally. An event declared as “will be” was known only as “will be” in His mind. Once it happened, it became known as “fulfilled”. Those declared as “might be” are only known as “might be”. He will freely choose to cause or permit one “might be” to change in His mind to a “will be” and another “might be” into a “won’t be/could have been”.

    The idea the future is limited to and locked in to working out only one way is a lie… or that changes happening in God’s mind is imperfection is also a lie. God’s Word counters clearly those lies. And God’s mind cannot believe lies as truths.

    1. Brian,

      Outstanding references.

      But, you know the Calvinist…they’ve already thought of a response for that. rhutchin just needs time to search for the already written response that he’s got SOMEWHERE in a file cabinet, under the letter “O” for omni-.

      Something like, God knew that he was gonna THINK ON IT for a while, and he already knew what his thinking was gonna result in.

      Ed

      1. Yes Ed… Look at their commentaries… they basically use technical jargon and verbosity to say – “This verse doesn’t mean what it says or what it clearly implies, because determinism has to be true.”

        Then you offer them $100 to show just one verse that clearly teaches everything was eternally immutably predestined from before creation to workout only one way. Silence or feeble attempts.

      2. Calvinist declaration 1:
        This verse doesn’t mean what it says or what it clearly implies – because determinism is true.

        Calvinist declaration 2:
        This verse can be construed to mean what we want it to mean – because determinism is true

        Calvinist declaration 3:
        When we think about sovereignty – our brains are conditioned to treat determinism as true

        Calvinist declaration 4:
        When we think about praying, and sins, and evils – our brains are conditioned to treat determinism as false

        Calvinist declaration 5:
        Our brains are conditioned to perceive scripture as our system – not any human philosophy

        Calvinist declaration 6:
        Our brains are conditioned to shut off any perceptions of our brains being conditioned in double-think.

        Best laid plans of mice and men! :-]

      3. Br. D. If only the Calvinist would honestly make those declarations and believe them… but their brains are too loyal to the system they have professed for so long, they are willfully ignorant… and that is by their own free will.

      4. Yes I agree
        And the fact that Jesus commands against DOUBLE-SPEAK ought to be some kind of indicator of serving two masters.

        But DOUBLE-SPEAK is the outward expression of DOUBLE-THINK.
        And when one walks into the ditch of DOUBLE-THINK one ends up captured there – forever thinking in circles
        And that kind of ditch takes divine intervention to be delivered from.

      5. Can one of the Calvinists reading here please explain why God would set up a deterministic system in which the participants must reflect a complex and bizarre mix of determinism=true and “as-if” determinism=false behavior, per br.d’s declarations (which are spot-on, by the way)?

        Wouldn’t it be infinitely simpler, more logical, and consistent to require people to behave “as-if” determinism=false, because determinism IS in fact false? Particularly if an exceedingly strong case for non-determinism exists in the Bible?

        Just sayin’

      6. mrteebs writes, “Can one of the Calvinists reading here please explain why God would set up a deterministic system…”

        God could not create a non-deterministic system because He has infinite understanding. If God dropped a feather off the top of a building on a windy day, He would know how that feather would twist and turn in the wind and where it would land by His understanding of all the factors involved. This even though there were an almost endless number of possible outcomes. The minute He dropped the feather, God would know where it would land 20 minutes later and every point in between. When God created Adam and Eve, He could not help but know the day of Adam’s death some 900 years into the future and each micro-second in between – all because of His infinite understanding.

        Then, “participants must reflect a complex and bizarre mix of determinism=true and “as-if” determinism=false behavior, per br.d’s declarations (which are spot-on, by the way)?”

        Are you normally aware and think about God knowing every thought you will have before you think it or every action you will take before you decide to take it? If you actually did, I suspect your behavior would change dramatically. People behave as if God does not exist or that He is always by their side in everything they do. br.d’s “as-if” thinking is just a rabbit trail that seems to accomplish nothing as far as I can see. People usually do not go around thinking that their sin nature is actively affecting what they do or that God is right there able and willing to help in any temptation. They normally let things happen without a thought about God, Satan, their sin nature, or anything else except what they want and then say, It was God’s will.

      7. rhutchin
        God could not create a non-deterministic system because He has infinite understanding.

        br.d
        Fallacy of question begging – a form of circular reasoning:
        Begging the question is one of the most common types of fallacies.
        It occurs when the premises that are meant to support an argument already assume that the conclusion is true.

        Dr. William Lane Craig explains:
        Via Middle Knowledge God knows how any possible person he might create would choose to use his freedom in any circumstance he might place that person – without predetermining what that person would be or do.

        This allows for a world that is not fully deterministic.
        This view of providence must be judged as a whole in terms of its philosophical coherence, explanatory power, theological fecundity, and so forth. It is a non-starter for its detractors to point out that its advocates have not proven the postulates of the theory to be true.

        Therefore the advocate of Middle Knowledge bears no initial burden to prove this postulate in order to commend his theory as the best account of divine providence available.

      8. rhutchin
        People behave as if God does not exist or that He is always by their side in everything they do. br.d’s “as-if” thinking is just a rabbit trail that seems to accomplish nothing as far as I can see.

        br.d
        John Calvin
        -quote
        “go about your office *AS-IF* nothing is determined in any part”

        Now all the SOT101 reader has to do is read rhutchin’s posts and see how the language conforms to Calvin’s instructions

        Now doesn’t it make perfect sense that a Calvinist – whose mind has been conditioned into *AS-IF* thinking – is going to go about his office *AS-IF* that thinking doesn’t exist. :-]

      9. rhutchin
        Are you normally aware and think about God knowing every thought you will have before you think it or every action you will take before you decide to take it?

        br.d
        Calvinist Misleading Talking-Points – Lesson #85
        Always obfuscate Calvin’s god Causing by hiding it under the banner of Calvin’s god Knowing

        The Calvinist can go about his office *AS-IF* Calvin’s god has predestined every neurological impulse the Calvinist will perceive within his brain.

        But John Calvin instructs the Calvinist to go about his office *AS-IF* nothing is determined in any part.
        Thus conditioning the mind to think *AS-IF* determinism is false – allows the person to maintain a semblance of normalcy.

        I still think God gave both Solipsism and Calvinism to mankind – as a form of entertainment! :-]

      10. brianwagner writes, “[Calvinists] basically use technical jargon and verbosity to say – “This verse doesn’t mean what it says or what it clearly implies, because determinism is true.”

        Calvinists define “determinism” by Acts 4, “…against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done.” No one disputes the truth of this – what is disputed is the extent to which all outcomes reflect God’s purpose and are brought about by God for His purposes. Here, Calvinists point to Ephesians 1, “God works all things according to the counsel of His will…” and as a subset of this, Romans 8, “…God works all things together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.” to conclude that God involves Himself in His creation to ensure that all things reflect His will and accomplished His purposes. Calvinists also conclude that “the counsel of God’s will” draws from His infinite understanding of His creation. Even humans can know future events by understanding – I can get into my car and push a button knowing that doing so will start the engine. I may not understand why it works this way, but I know that pushing a button will result in the engine starting. Having infinite understanding, God knows every twist and turn of a feather that a person drops from the top of the Empire State building until it hits the ground. So, God knew that Adam would eat the fruit before Adam was even challenged to disobey God and eat the fruit. Can all this be disputed by the verses Brian notes? Of course not. The challenge is to explain the verses that Brian has highlighted in light of what we know about God and His perfect knowledge of all future events. Obviously, some are easier to explain than others but to say that Calvinists use “technical jargon and verbosity ” maybe results from Brian’s inability to explain away the basic Calvinist conclusions about God’s understanding and knowledge.

      11. rhutchin
        Calvinists define “determinism” by Acts 4

        br.d
        Interpretation:
        Calvinists define Acts 4 by determinism :-]

      12. rhutchin
        God knew that Adam would eat the fruit before Adam was even challenged to disobey God and eat the fruit.

        br.d
        Calvinists do love their DOUBLE-SPEAK!

        In Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism)
        1) Adam’s every neurological impulse (i.e. choice) was determined to infallibly come to pass within Adam’s brain before Adam was created
        2) No alternative possibility outside of what is infallibly decreed is made available – at pain of falsifying the infallible decree
        3) The creature (i.e. Adam) is never permitted to Be/Do otherwise than what is infallibly decreed – at pain of falsifying the infallible decree

        And there you have Adam’s options within the Calvinist scheme

        Hotel Calvi-fornia:
        You can check out any time you like – but you can never leave :-]

      13. rhutchin: “God knew that Adam would eat the fruit before Adam was even challenged to disobey God and eat the fruit.”
        br.d: “Calvinists do love their DOUBLE-SPEAK!”

        When you cannot argue against Calvinism, appeal to DOUBLE-SPEAK as if it means something.

      14. rhutchin
        When you cannot argue against Calvinism, appeal to DOUBLE-SPEAK as if it means something.

        br.d
        Actually – I’m not arguing “against” Calvinism – but rather cutting through the fog of its DOUBLE-SPEAK talking-points.

        Because the scripture warns against DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS – and against DOUBLE-SPEAK.
        And because we don’t want SOT101 readers to be deceived by DOUBLE-SPEAK talking points.

      15. br.d writes, “Actually – I’m not arguing “against” Calvinism – …”

        That’s true. How could you?

        Then, “…but rather cutting through the fog of its DOUBLE-SPEAK talking-points.”

        In the absence of arguments against Calvinism, appeal to DOUBLE-SPEAK.

      16. br.d
        Actually – I’m not arguing “against” Calvinism – …”

        rhutchin
        That’s true. How could you?

        br.d
        I don’t have to – as Calvinist here do it for me.
        Its all in the DOUBLE-SPEAK talking-points :-]

        rhutchin
        In the absence of arguments against Calvinism, appeal to DOUBLE-SPEAK.

        br.d
        Its not what the Calvinist knows – that gets him in trouble
        Its what he knows for sure – that just ain’t so! 😀

      17. br.d writes, ” don’t have to – as Calvinist here do it for me. Its all in the DOUBLE-SPEAK talking-points”

        When all else fails, claim DOUBLE-SPEAK.

      18. rhutchin
        When all else fails, claim DOUBLE-SPEAK.

        br.d
        Not claimed – showed
        Highlight Calvinist examples – for SOT101 readers to observe – and let them make up their own minds

        Its totally understandable – Calvinists won’t be happy with that.

      19. Thanks Roger… great illustration of verbosity to confirm you believe the Scriptures I gave don’t mean what they say. You didn’t even deal with them. We both agree God is presently working out His plan. We disgree that He actually knows there are unchosen possiblities. Your definition of omniscience would not allow for such knowledge in God.

        In determinism God’s omniscience is limited and locked in to only knowing everything was eternally immutably predestined from before creation to workout only one way. The Scripture clearly reads differently, as I have clearly shown, and you danced past.

        As you can guess, I will not answer further your next response. But you are still invited to discuss what God meant in those 5 passages that I gave. And then I might give 5 more for you and others to consider. There are plenty.

        The verses you gave clearly do not prove everything was eternally immutably predestined from before creation to workout only one way. I think you know that. Sad.

      20. brianwagner writes, “great illustration of verbosity to confirm you believe the Scriptures I gave don’t mean what they say. You didn’t even deal with them.”

        How can it be verbosity if I didn’t even deal with them. If I had used many words to explain the Scriptures you cited but ended up explaining nothing, that would be an illustration of verbosity. All I did was lay the groundwork for Calvinism that you ignore, and do so, I think with an economy of words.

        Then, “We both agree God is presently working out His plan. We disagree that He actually knows there are unchosen possiblities. ”

        We disagree on God’s ability to work out His plan. You think God is reactive and I think God is proactive. We both agree that there are unchosen possiblities in the temporal context, but you say that God does not understand what those choices will be and I say God does understand what those choices will be.

        Then, “Your definition of omniscience would not allow for such knowledge in God.”

        My definition of God’s omniscience depends on God having an infinite understanding of the future and His perfect knowledge derived from that infinite understanding. Your definition allows for God to be ignorant of the decisions people will make in the future thereby showing that God lacks some understanding of the actualized future – causing God to react to events as they unfold and His understanding is increased.

        Then, “The verses you gave clearly do not prove everything was eternally immutably predestined from before creation to workout only one way. I think you know that. Sad.”

        Of course, the verses I cited were not intended to prove everything was eternally immutably predestined from before creation to work out only one way. They only proved that God has a certain knowledge of everything that will happen in the future and that they would work out only one way. To prove your point – eternally immutably predestined – requires that I address God’s omnipotence and sovereignty.

        Regardless, it’s nice to hear from you.

  7. Here also is biblical evidence the future is not already set – but in terms of how the human factor of choice and free will affects how He will respond. The Lord’s response is set, but the outcome for the individual depends on what they chose to do.

    Rev. 2:4-5 – “Nevertheless I have this against you, that you have left your first love. “Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place—unless you repent.”

    Rev. 2:16 – “Repent, or else I will come to you quickly and will fight against them with the sword of My mouth.”

    Rev. 2:21-23 – “And I gave her time to repent of her sexual immorality, and she did not repent. “Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds. “I will kill her children with death, and all the churches shall know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts. And I will give to each one of you according to your works.”

    In the case of Jezebel, she was given time to repent, but it seems she was unwilling to. In other words, her future had not being set, it was in her hands – but it seems she may not have chosen wisely!

    1. Good examples Aidan!

      On the issue of repentance – take for example the instances in which Calvinists show up here and scold or castigate criticisms of Calvinism – with the insistence that people posting those should repent.

      Notice how the Calvinist mind treats a person’s criticism of Calvinism *AS-IF* it that person’s choice to do that were “UP TO” the person – and *AS-IF* that person’s choice had not be predestined for him at the foundation of the world.

      So the Calvinist mind is conditioned to AUTO-MAGICALLY treat some events *AS-IF* they are predestined – and treat other events *AS-IF* they aren’t.

      And take for example how rhutchin today affirmed in a post – that in Calvinism every human choice is predestined in advance – and therefore human choice is limited to one singular, fixed trajectory having been predestined in advance.

      And yet at the same time he also claims that Calvinists are -quote “Self-Determining”.

      *AS-IF* the determinations which come to pass within the Calvinist’s brain are not predetermined for them by an external mind – at the foundation of the world.

      The Calvinist practice of *AS-IF* thinking goes one way in one context – and flips to the other way in a different context.
      This is their way of maintaining a sense of normalcy in a world in which their every neurological impulse is determined by an external mind.

      1. Br.d,
        “And yet at the same time he also claims that Calvinists are -quote “Self-Determining”.

        Aidan,
        The funny thing is, is that I agree with him; Calvinists are “Self-Determining” – because there’s no else determining their theology but themselves. It’s totally human in origin!

      2. Good one!
        Agreed!

        Like they say – God decided to make man in his image – and John Calvin decided to return the favor.
        And the fruit doesn’t fall far from the tree! :-]

      3. Matthew 3:10 NKJV – “The axe is already laid at the root of the trees; therefore every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.”

  8. Most of the omni and im statements Calvinists and other “traditional” Christians use to describe God come not from the Bible but instead from Pagan philosophy, Plato and Aristotle.

    The idea that God somehow exists “outside” of time is also a non Biblical concept.

    The Biblical God changes His mind, has emotions, takes action without knowing how things will turn out, has regrets.

    Christopher Fisher’s web site has many resources on Plato’s influence on early Christianity.

    1. carl writes, “Most of the omni and im statements Calvinists and other “traditional” Christians use to describe God come not from the Bible but instead from Pagan philosophy, Plato and Aristotle.”

      Plato and Aristotle may have gotten their ideas from pagan philosophy and then maybe as described in Romans 1, “…what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead,…” The Scriptures describe God by reference to the universe and then by special revelation from God. Attributing the description of God to pagan philosophy is pure imagination.

      Then “The idea that God somehow exists “outside” of time is also a non Biblical concept.”

      God was before the universe ever existed. Time did not come into play until the God created the universe as we see in Genesis 1, “God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years;” God holds the universe in the palm of His hand (an illustration) and is not affected by the passing of time within the universe.

      1. rhutchin
        Plato and Aristotle may have gotten their ideas from pagan philosophy and then maybe as described in Romans 1

        br.d
        So funny!
        Plato lived 400 years BC

        rhutchin
        Attributing the description of God to pagan philosophy is pure imagination.

        br.d
        Well – we can take this for what its worth – coming from someone Calvin’s god has given over a dozen FALSE perceptions – to infallibly perceive as true. :-]

      2. rhutchin: “Plato and Aristotle may have gotten their ideas from pagan philosophy and then maybe as described in Romans 1”
        br.d: “So funny! Plato lived 400 years BC”

        So!!!!! Plato could easily observe the sun, moon and stars without Paul having to tell him that he could.

      3. rhutchin: “Plato and Aristotle may have gotten their ideas from pagan philosophy and then maybe as described in Romans 1”
        br.d: “So funny! Plato lived 400 years BC”

        rhutchin
        So!!!!! Plato could easily observe the sun, moon and stars without Paul having to tell him that he could.

        br.d
        Plato believed he was instructed by the spirits of dead people
        John Calvin was instructed by a NeoPlatonist Catholic.
        Perhaps there are some dots to connect! :-]

      4. br.d writes, “Plato believed…”

        In diverting one’s attention, br.d agrees with me statement, “Plato could easily observe the sun, moon and stars without Paul having to tell him that he could.” Thus, even those unacquainted with the Scriptures could observe the heavens and figure out many attributes of God exactly as Paul explains in Romans 1.

      5. You described what Plato “could” have done
        I described what Plato did do.

        I think SOT101 readers can reason through that themselves :-]

  9. RH states: “God was before the universe ever existed. Time did not come into play until the God created the universe as we see in Genesis 1, “God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years;””

    Of course, your very statement disproves what you are trying to say. For there to be a “before” the universe, time had to exist. That God put stars and the sun to mark time in no way states that time did not exist before He did this.

    You are reading your “Timeless” ideas about God into the text.

    1. carl writes, “For there to be a “before” the universe, time had to exist.”

      No, For there to be a “before” the universe, the universe had to come into existence. Time could then be measured starting with the beginning of the universe and run until the end of the universe. In order to measure time within the universe, we have the sun, moon.

      Then, “You are reading your “Timeless” ideas about God into the text.”

      No, I merely note that God is from everlasting to everlasting and there is nothing to measure the passage of time for God since He is immutable does not change.

  10. RH, as anyone who has read the Bible knows, God changes all the time. For instance, there was a moment before Jesus was born that He was all God and zero man. After He was born He has that dual nature, God and Man. Viola! Incarnation! Change! Not only that, He was moving through time.

    In addition, I think God can measure time just fine. Seriously, God is unaware of the passage of time? Your God is too small, RH!

    Any action on God’s part creates sequence, i.e. time. There was a moment before God took action. (past) There is the moment God is taking action. (present) There are the moments that haven’t happened yet after God’s action. (future) Change and sequence.

    Your Platonic ideal of “the one”; immutable, timeless, etc. Isn’t reflected in the Bible.

    Do you really think Abraham and Moses were arguing with an immutable, changeless, timeless Being?

    1. Carl
      Do you really think Abraham and Moses were arguing with an immutable, changeless, timeless Being?

      br.d
      This is where Calvinism’s *AS-IF* thinking kicks in.

      For the Calvinist:
      Abraham and Moses knew that god has every nano-second meticulously programmed in eternity past and doesn’t change his mind
      But they treated their knowledge of god as an illusion
      And went about their office *AS-IF* what they knew about god was false.

      The Solipsist also believes/knows that all other human beings are illusions.
      And he also goes about his office *AS-IF* what he knows about humans is false.

      So we can see that Solipsism and Calvinism both practice *AS-IF* thinking.

    2. carl writes, “as anyone who has read the Bible knows, God changes all the time. For instance, there was a moment before Jesus was born that He was all God and zero man. After He was born He has that dual nature, God and Man. Viola! Incarnation! Change! Not only that, He was moving through time.”

      When God entered into His creation and took on a human body, He did not stop being God. He was still the omnipotent, all understanding, sovereign God that He was before He impregnated Mary. God did not change. God did not become a baby when Jesus was born nor did God die when Jesus died on the cross. Jesus was both God and man. While Jesus was human, God was still a spirit and unchanging.

      Then, “I think God can measure time just fine. Seriously, God is unaware of the passage of time? Your God is too small,”

      Time is measures in change. The moon changes position and we measure that movement and identify a change that we call time. The earth moves around the sun and we measure that movement and call it time. We record the passing of time be recording things that change. So, in eternity past, what changed that God could measure? It is not about God being too small or too big; it is about having something change and recording that change.

      Then, “Any action on God’s part creates sequence, i.e. time. There was a moment before God took action. (past) There is the moment God is taking action. (present) There are the moments that haven’t happened yet after God’s action. (future) Change and sequence.”

      So, we have God creating the universe, God maintaining His creation, and God bringing the universe to an end. Time is associated with changes in the universe. In all this, God does not change, so while time passes in the universe, no time passes for God. God both creates and destroys the universe in one decree. He creates the universe knowing every detail of that universe from beginning to end and knows this in one decree.

      Then, “Do you really think Abraham and Moses were arguing with an immutable, changeless, timeless Being?”

      Yes.

  11. Wow, RH.

    That is one big mess of illogical nonsense.

    You stick with your Augustine/Plato. I’ll stick with the God revealed in the Bible.

Leave a Reply