More on "All Things"

[GodsfreeWill]

Originally posted by lee_merrill

Not at all! Let's read further:

Judges 2:23 The Lord had allowed those nations to remain; he did not drive them out at once by giving them into the hands of Joshua.

Here is a further explanation, the promise was delayed, but not canceled.

Joshua 23:5 The Lord your God himself will drive them out of your way. He will push them out before you, and you will take possession of their land, as the Lord your God promised you.

You must not have understood Jeremy's point.

Your logic states, "If God says something, for example, 'I will drive out,' this must come to pass. You claim it did since they do not exist there today. (Of which by the way you can't even prove.) So to remain consistent lee, if we have a verse where God states 'I will no longer drive them out' you must claim that they have to live there today in order for this to be true. God didn't say 'I will not drive them out for the time being,' He said 'I will NO LONGER drive them out.' Your logic is very faulty. BTW, if God says He will no longer do something, whatever that something may be, that is a change of mind of a previously stated action. To "no longer" do something menas a previously stated intent of doing something, aka " a change of mind."

Hebrews 6:18 ... it is impossible for God to lie ...

The word here is "adunatos," which means the power is not there, God could not lie, even if he wanted to. And God cannot contradict himself, either:

Actually it's properly translated "the unlying God."

I did pick my reason from this verse, though. Thus I think I have used the context, and given the reason that this verse gives, as to why God cannot change his mind. You must erase (even contradict!) this reason, and say God is like us. And you also need a verse that says God changes his mind like we do...

Wrong. There is no contradiction no matter what the translation. Nor do I have to say God is like us, because in many ways He is not. The verse says He is not a man that HE should change His mind after being bribed by a mere man. Nothing else. It doesn't say He cannot repent because He is not a man. That's foolish. As for finding a verse that says God repents like we do....why? God repents numerous times biblically, and that's enough for it to be truth. Whether or not He repents like we do is irregardless of the situation. If we define "nacham" as it's most absic menaing "turn" well then man "nachams" (Job 42:6) the same as God "nachams"
(Gen. 6:6.)

You have the same difficulty, though! And you must add a qualifier in verse 29 and say "does not change his mind [this time]." This word has a range of meanings, and it is not inappropriate to choose different meanings in different instances. I think we have an indication as to how to translate "nacham" in verse 11, too:

1 Samuel 15:11 Samuel was troubled, and he cried out to the Lord all that night.

I think this shows that Samuel was of the same mind as God was here, that Samuel was grieved too, not that Samuel changed his mind as well.

We don't need to add a qualifier, the text speaks for itself. Aren't you the one adding qualifiers in the Joshua and Judges verses about "driving out?"

You seem to not understand that grieving here is a change of mind. God handpicked Saul to be king. You seem to forget that this means your calvinist views cannot be true as God handpicked Saul to be king, and then Saul failed. God then changed His mind about picking Saul as king. His grieving, or regretting of picking Saul as king is the exact opposite in mindset, of the mindset when He personally chose SAul to king. We define this as " a change of mind."

 

[godrulz]

Open Theism takes both sets of passages literally (God changing His mind, etc.), while recognizing figurative language in other areas (e.g. personification of wisdom in Proverbs). The closed view takes these figuratively without warrant. We should accept the face value revelation of God's nature and ways, rather than our preconceived ideas about Him.

 

[GodsfreeWill]

Lee, I almost forgot the entire reason I was responding to you. According to your logic, if we have a verse that says God does not do something because He is not a man, then He can NEVER do it. Well this logic once again doesn't work in Hosea 11:8-9. This passage states that God is God and not man, and He will not come in wrath. Yet the verse prior states He will not again destroy Ephraim, which brings a problem to your "God and not man" theory, and what do we do with the coming wrath in the book of the revelation? Is it just one big joke lee? I think not...

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Lee: I believe Jesus was "in time" here on earth

GIT: then you agree that the title "i am" doesn't refer to an eternal now?

No, I believe in Abraham's day, Jesus' experience of time was different that when he was on earth.

GIT: ... we agree that he used it to claim he was God. but do we agree that it does not refer to an eternal present as well?

No, I believe Jesus gave them more of an answer than they were asking for, because of the change in tenses.

DD: God didn't say 'I will not drive them out for the time being,' He said 'I will NO LONGER drive them out.'

He said both!

Judges 2:23 The Lord had allowed those nations to remain; he did not drive them out at once by giving them into the hands of Joshua.

So we must take both verses, and the second adds "at once," so that is how we must understand verse 3 in the same chapter.

Hebrews 6:18 ... it is impossible for God to lie ...

Lee: The word here is "adunatos," which means the power is not there ...

DD: Actually it's properly translated "the unlying God."

No, that's Titus 1:2. Heb. 6:18 has the word "unable" or "no power" right there in plain view.

Lee: You must erase (even contradict!) this reason [in 1 Sam. 15:29], and say God is like us. And you also need a verse that says God changes his mind like we do...

DD: The verse says He is not a man that HE should change His mind after being bribed by a mere man.

Well, that's actually not what the verse says, you have added a whole clause here. Maybe Num. 23:19 could be interpreted that way, but how is Saul trying to bribe God in 1 Sam. 15:29?

DD: then man "nachams" (Job 42:6) the same as God "nachams"
(Gen. 6:6.)

But God says he doesn't "nacham" because he is not a man, implying that when God "nachams," it's indeed not the same as man does.

Lee: And you must add a qualifier in verse 29 and say "does not change his mind [this time].

DD: We don't need to add a qualifier, the text speaks for itself.

Great! Then without the qualifier, we have "does not change his mind." Glad to agree!

DD: God then changed His mind about picking Saul as king.

But how could God make this promise about Solomon?

1 Chronicles 17:13 I will be his father, and he will be my son. I will never take my love away from him, as I took it away from your predecessor.

If God is taking chances with each king, how could he promise this?

Godrulz: We should accept the face value revelation of God's nature and ways, rather than our preconceived ideas about Him.

I agree!

James 1:17 ... the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.

DD: this logic once again doesn't work in Hosea 11:8-9. This passage states that God is God and not man, and He will not come in wrath. Yet the verse prior states He will not again destroy Ephraim ...

That's a good point! But to be a passage parallel to 1 Samuel 15:29, we would need to have here, "God is not a man, that he should become angry." What we actually have is "I will not come in wrath," referring to a specific event, and (as you say) because of God's nature, but we do not read "I do not come in wrath," which would then be parallel to 1 Samuel.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

No, I believe in Abraham's day, Jesus' experience of time was different that when he was on earth.



No, I believe Jesus gave them more of an answer than they were asking for, because of the change in tenses.

ok, now i am confused. let's start again. what Jesus said "before abraham was born, I AM", what do you believe he meant?

 

[godrulz]

God would not change His mind in some specific cases, because He is not fickle or capricious like man can be. It is not that man can change his mind, but God cannot not (will and intellect are aspects of a personal being). This does not mean that He cannot change His mind (immutable) as He does in some verses like about Hezkiah, but that He would not in that case (Numbers, etc.).

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Lee: I believe Jesus gave them more of an answer than they were asking for, because of the change in tenses.

GIT: let's start again. what Jesus said "before abraham was born, I AM", what do you believe he meant?

They were asking "have you seen Abraham?" And Jesus didn't just say "Yes!" He didn't say "Before Abraham was, I was" either. Now how are we to understand him saying "before X, I am"? This is not just claiming the divine title spoken to Moses, though Jesus is doing that, too. That would have been "before X, I was 'I am'".

That's what I think Jesus was not saying. Here is what I think he is saying: "I am" means that God is not just experiencing points of time like we do, that if you pick any point in time, Jesus is there, present there, in a way different than Abraham could be present at a moment in time.

Jesus may be claiming he is present in the past here! I think that's possible. "Before Abraham was, I [still] am."

Godrulz: God would not change His mind in some specific cases, because He is not fickle or capricious like man can be.

But that's not what this is saying:

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?

If God says "X will occur," and then really changed his mind, then what he said previously was not true, thus that was a lie, if God knew it might not be true, and said it was true. But God does not lie, and thus he does not really say "X will occur," and change his mind.

"Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?"

If God can change his mind, then the answer is yes, yes he does, actually...

Blessings,
Lee

 

[*Acts9_12Out*]

Lee,

Finally... You throw your cards on the table. You said,

If God says "X will occur," and then really changed his mind, then what he said previously was not true, thus that was a lie, if God knew it might not be true, and said it was true. But God does not lie, and thus he does not really say "X will occur," and change his mind.

Let's test your theory...

God says "X will occur..."

Exodus 32
9 And the Lord said to Moses, “I have seen this people, and indeed it is a stiff-necked people!
10 “Now therefore, let Me alone, that My wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them. And I will make of you a great nation.�

God changed His mind and "X did not occur..."

Exodus 32
14 So the Lord repented from the harm which He said He would do to His people.

God says "X will occur..."

Numbers 14
11 Then the Lord said to Moses: “How long will these people reject Me? And how long will they not believe Me, with all the signs which I have performed among them?
12 “I will strike them with the pestilence and disinherit them, and I will make of you a nation greater and mightier than they.�

God changed His mind and "X did not occur..."

Numbers 14
20 Then the Lord said: “I have pardoned, according to your word;
21 “but truly, as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord—

God says "X will occur..."

2 Kings 20
1 In those days Hezekiah was sick and near death. And Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, went to him and said to him, “Thus says the Lord: ‘Set your house in order, for you shall die, and not live.’ �

God changed His mind and "X did not occur..."

2 Kings 20
5 “Return and tell Hezekiah the leader of My people, ‘Thus says the Lord, the God of David your father: “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.
6 “And I will add to your days fifteen years. I will deliver you and this city from the hand of the king of Assyria; and I will defend this city for My own sake, and for the sake of My servant David.� ’ �

God says "X will occur..."

Jonah 3
1 Now the word of the Lord came to Jonah the second time, saying,
2 “Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and preach to it the message that I tell you.�
3 So Jonah arose and went to Nineveh, according to the word of the Lord. Now Nineveh was an exceedingly great city, a three-day journey in extent.
4 And Jonah began to enter the city on the first day’s walk. Then he cried out and said, “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!�

God changed His mind and "X did not occur..."

Jonah 3
10 Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.

Notice the end of verse 10 Lee... "He did not do it!" I thought God was "unable" to change His mind, ever....

I ask again, did God change His mind or not? You maintain that Numbers 23:19 and 1 Samuel 15:29 are universal truths about the character of God. You claim that God is "unable" to change His mind. By your line of reasoning, the above passages show God to be a liar. You are stuck in your deterministic box with a weak god who cannot do something. Unfortunately, I have given you 4 instances where God says He will do something, and He does not do it.

If you argue that God has complete prescience / foreknowledge of these situatiuons, then you're still stuck. If God already knew Moses would pray (twice!), already knew that Hezekiah would pray and already knew the people of Nineveh would repent, then God's initial statements are lies.

Think about it... If God already knew Moses would pray on behalf of the people, then when He said, "Let Me alone," so that He could destroy the people, He didn't really mean it because He knew Moses would intercede.

If God already knew Hezekiah would pray, then God lied when He said, "Set your house in order for you shall surely die and not live." He already knew Hezekiah would "cry out" to Him, and the initial statement would be false.

If God already knew that the people of Nineveh would repent, then when He instructed Jonah to say, "Yet forty days and Nineveh shall be overthrown," that was a lie too. God told Jonah to tell a lie because He already foreknew / predestined the people of Nineveh to repent so He never really intended to overthrow them.

See how foolish that is? Numbers 23:19 and 1 Samuel 15:29 are instances where God shows us He cannot be bribed by man. God will not change His mind about His previously stated intent (Numbers 23 - His intent to bless Israel; 1 Samuel 15:29 - His intent to take the throne from Saul).

The OV contends that God definitely intended to destroy Israel (Ex 32; Nu 14), definitely intended that Hezekiah would die (2 Kings 20) and definitely intended to overthrow Nineveh. However, God remains true to His word, and if a person / nation repents, then God will change His mind concerning the evil He once intended (Jer 18; Eze 18).

Why did God say He was going to destroy Israel, allow Hezekiah to die, overthrow Nineveh and then change His mind? Along with the principles I've already mentioned we find,

James 2
13 For judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.

God bless,

--Jeremy Finkenbinder

 

[godrulz]

Numbers and Samuel are to be understood as follows: in those 2 specific cases (in context), God WOULD not change His mind. What He determined will come to pass. It does not mean that metaphysically He COULD not change His mind. This is the only way to reconcile, without contradiction, the passages given as evidence for God changing His mind (conditional prophecies, etc.). One could say those passages are figurative, but they can be taken at face value if one is willing to jettison tradition to embrace a more biblical understanding of the nature and ways of God (i.e. the openness of God's creation).

 

[*Acts9_12Out*]

Lee,

One more thing... I can't let your faulty representation of Hebrews 6:18 slide... You said,

Hebrews 6:18 ... it is impossible for God to lie ...

The word here is "adunatos," which means the power is not there, God could not lie, even if he wanted to. And God cannot contradict himself, either:

Consider the context...

Hebrews 6
17 Thus God, determining to show more abundantly to the heirs of promise the immutability of His counsel, confirmed it by an oath,
18 that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we might have strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us.

God is clearly stating that it is impossible for Him to lie concerning two immutable things! What are those two immutable things? His oath and His immutable counsel. This passage is simply stating that if God makes an oath and counsels (boulh) something to come to pass, He will not lie. We are to have strong consolation that He will do what He says when He decrees an oath and wills (boulh) the event to come to pass. This fits perfectly with what we've been arguing all along. There are certain future events that God has foreknowledge of. How does He have foreknowledge? Because He decrees an oath and wills (boulh) it to be done (Isa 46:9-11).

Next time, try not to rip a passage out of the context and make it a pretext.

--Jeremy

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Lee: If God says "X will occur," and then really changed his mind, then what he said previously was not true, thus that was a lie, if God knew it might not be true, and said it was true.

Jeremy: Let's test your theory...

Exodus 32:14 So the Lord repented from the harm which He said He would do to His people.

Deuteronomy 10:10 Now I had stayed on the mountain forty days and nights, as I did the first time, and the Lord listened to me at this time also. It was not his will to destroy you.

Moses' prayer was part of God's plan not to destroy them! He didn't change his mind here, "said" can be "threatened," but it doesn't tell us God's plan, you can threaten someone with a plan to cause them to change.

2 Kings 20:1 In those days Hezekiah was sick and near death. And Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, went to him and said to him, “Thus says the Lord: ‘Set your house in order, for you shall die, and not live.’ �

I think we have "die" here in two senses, Hezekiah needed to get his heart in order or he would die physically. He died to self instead, and thus he died in another sense, in order to live:

Isaiah 38:13 day and night you made an end of me.

Romans 8:13 For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live...

Isaiah 38:17 Surely it was for my benefit that I suffered such anguish. In your love you kept me from the pit of destruction; you have put all my sins behind your back.

Jon. 3:4: "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!"

Jonah 3:10 Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.

Notice the end of verse 10 Lee... "He did not do it!" I thought God was "unable" to change His mind, ever....

I ask again, did God change His mind or not?

No, he didn't! I shall ask you my Jonah questions:

If it was God's plan to destroy the Ninevites, then why did he send Jonah, and spoil his plan? How can we trust God, if he says X will happen, and then he may act himself, and cause X not to happen? Why didn't God destroy them right away? Why did Jonah seem to have a better grasp of the situation than God did? He thought the Ninevites would probably repent, and thus he ran. Why did the Ninevites seem to know better than God did? They thought they could repent, and God, apparently, did not. Why didn't God keep the Ninevites from repenting after Jonah preached to them, like he did with the sons of Eli (1 Sam. 2:25) and with Amaziah (2 Chr. 25:16)?

And they were overthrown, like with Hezekiah, by repentance, and not by destruction.

You maintain that Numbers 23:19 and 1 Samuel 15:29 are universal truths about the character of God. You claim that God is "unable" to change His mind. By your line of reasoning, the above passages show God to be a liar.

Actually, I think it is you who has to answer that charge. How is God not lying, if he says "X will happen," and he knows X might not happen? How is that not a lie?

Think about it... If God already knew Moses would pray on behalf of the people, then when He said, "Let Me alone," so that He could destroy the people, He didn't really mean it because He knew Moses would intercede.

He did destroy them, though. But not at that time. When God said "they will wander 40 years and fall in the desert," Moses left God alone, and that judgment happened.

Numbers 23:19 and 1 Samuel 15:29 are instances where God shows us He cannot be bribed by man. God will not change His mind about His previously stated intent (Numbers 23 - His intent to bless Israel; 1 Samuel 15:29 - His intent to take the throne from Saul).

Num. 23:19 might be read that "God will not be bribed." But not 1 Sam. 15:29!

1 Samuel 15:29 ... for he is not a man, that he should change his mind.

The reason is clearly that God is not like man, not that in this instance God has made a firm decision. How are you getting that from this text? Or that Saul was trying to bribe God?

Jeremy: The OV contends that God definitely intended to destroy Israel (Ex 32; Nu 14), definitely intended that Hezekiah would die (2 Kings 20) and definitely intended to overthrow Nineveh. However, God remains true to His word, and if a person / nation repents, then God will change His mind concerning the evil He once intended (Jer 18; Eze 18).

Godrulz: This is the only way to reconcile, without contradiction, the passages given as evidence for God changing His mind (conditional prophecies, etc.).

But then he didn't change his plan! According to your view, he changed his response. That's almost what I believe, when the threat is conditional, or when a promise is conditional. I also believe God knows how they will choose, though.

Jeremy: Why did God say He was going to destroy Israel, allow Hezekiah to die, overthrow Nineveh and then change His mind?

Well, we can't take that route, because of verses like this one:

"Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?" (Num. 23:19)

Again, if God can change his mind, then the answer is yes he does, actually...

James 2:13 For judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.

Here's a verse like that!

Romans 11:32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

Thus when mercy triumphs, we may maintain that that was actually God's plan.

Hebrews 6:18 ... it is impossible for God to lie ...

Lee: The word here is "adunatos," which means the power is not there, God could not lie, even if he wanted to.

Hebrews 6
17 Thus God, determining to show more abundantly to the heirs of promise the immutability of His counsel, confirmed it by an oath,
18 that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie...

Jeremy: What are those two immutable things? His oath and His immutable counsel.

If God's purpose is immutable, then we have another verse saying God doesn't change his mind, by the way.

"'So that' introduces the purpose God had in swearing the oath. It gave men 'two unchangeable things,' the promise and the oath. Once God had spoken, it was inconceivable that either should alter. It is impossible for God to lie." (Expositor's Bible Commentary)

This commentary says the "two things" are his promise and his oath. Now are we to understand that when God makes a promise and gives an oath, or when God makes a promise and has it in his plan, that then, and only then, God cannot lie?

I think the point here is because God cannot lie, we may trust his oath and his promise. Not the other way around, somehow. And God didn't swear to us about his purpose for the hope we have! So how is this encouragement to us? Or to the original readers of this letter? Unless we have an oath, God might be lying. No, that won't do, and that can't be the meaning here...

Blessings,
Lee

 

[GodsfreeWill]

Lee, you have no idea how thankful I am that you at least dialogue with us OV'ers here on the web. It's good to see you defend what you believe. It's also challenging for me none the less, and I appreciate it because if I am wrong, I definitely want to know!

Originally posted by lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

Exodus 32:14 So the Lord repented from the harm which He said He would do to His people.

Deuteronomy 10:10 Now I had stayed on the mountain forty days and nights, as I did the first time, and the Lord listened to me at this time also. It was not his will to destroy you.

Moses' prayer was part of God's plan not to destroy them! He didn't change his mind here, "said" can be "threatened," but it doesn't tell us God's plan, you can threaten someone with a plan to cause them to change.

Well, I think ye may be reading too much into the text. The Deut. 10 passage uses the Hebrew verb "avah" which can be understood as point action, similar to the aorist tense in greek. This makes sense to me that the verse is clearly saying that it was not God's will to destroy them (point action) when He repented of the destruction He previously said. Meaning, this verse does not have to be taken that it was God's will from before the foundation of the world not to destroy them, but rather, when God repented of the harm He said He woudl do, at that time, it was not His will to destroy them.

Now, you definitely cannot prove that Moses' prayer was part of God's plan. We don't have scripture for that. You even admitted that we didn't know God's plan. I could argue that it was not God's desire (will) to destroy them, but He was going to anyways, because they deserved it.

As for said being "threat," I'd tend to agree with you. Although, I don't think that would change much of anything. Your logic fails miserably in this instance. You say, "you can threaten someone with a plan to cause them to change," yet in this story, God is telling Moses about His threat to kill the people, not the people themselves. God even repents of the threat without the people ever knowing about the threat, much less repenting themselves! He said He would spare Moses and make of him a great nation, so why exactly, according to your view, did He even threat to kill the people if He wasn't going to tell them to get them to repent? Did He spare Moses and make of him a great nation?

2 Kings 20:1 In those days Hezekiah was sick and near death. And Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, went to him and said to him, “Thus says the Lord: ‘Set your house in order, for you shall die, and not live.’ �

I think we have "die" here in two senses, Hezekiah needed to get his heart in order or he would die physically. He died to self instead, and thus he died in another sense, in order to live:

Isaiah 38:13 day and night you made an end of me.

Romans 8:13 For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live...

Isaiah 38:17 Surely it was for my benefit that I suffered such anguish. In your love you kept me from the pit of destruction; you have put all my sins behind your back.

It sounds good, but the context just doesn't support it. Your biggest problem is that God "added" 15 years to his life. What does this mean lee? Why nothing more than He actually WAS going to die. For God to ADD 15 years to his life shows a change in how God dealt with Hezekiah.

Jon. 3:4: "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!"

Jonah 3:10 Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.


No, he didn't! I shall ask you my Jonah questions:

If it was God's plan to destroy the Ninevites, then why did he send Jonah, and spoil his plan? How can we trust God, if he says X will happen, and then he may act himself, and cause X not to happen? Why didn't God destroy them right away? Why did Jonah seem to have a better grasp of the situation than God did? He thought the Ninevites would probably repent, and thus he ran. Why did the Ninevites seem to know better than God did? They thought they could repent, and God, apparently, did not. Why didn't God keep the Ninevites from repenting after Jonah preached to them, like he did with the sons of Eli (1 Sam. 2:25) and with Amaziah (2 Chr. 25:16)?

And they were overthrown, like with Hezekiah, by repentance, and not by destruction.

This one is easy for me. First question, what was God's original plan? Was it to destroy ninevah within 40 days if they did not repent, or was He just saying that in 40 days, they will repent? Let's look and see...

"Then he cried out and said, "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!" ... the people of Nineveh believed God ... the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, ... let every one turn from his evil way and from the violence that is in his hands ... Who can tell if God will turn and relent, and turn away from His fierce anger, so that we may not perish? ... Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it."

Well, the king understood God's decree as " He will destroy us" as verse 9 says, jonah understood God's decree as " He will destroy them" as in 4:2 jonah calls God "One who relents from doing harm," so it seems to me that noth the king and jonah understood that god said He woudl destroy them physically, not that they would repent in 40 days and that this was their overthrow. I guess we could say that jonah and the king were wrong, but I just can't do that, especially without scripture backing it up. It's clear to me what God's intended plan was.

Actually, I think it is you who has to answer that charge. How is God not lying, if he says "X will happen," and he knows X might not happen? How is that not a lie?

God's present intended plan is just that, His present intended plan. If God's changes His mind of His now past intended plan, that does not nullify the truth and validity of His once present intended plan.

He did destroy them, though. But not at that time. When God said "they will wander 40 years and fall in the desert," Moses left God alone, and that judgment happened.

Question for lee:
A. Moses said to God "nacham from this harm to Your people!"
B. God "nachamed from the harm which He said He would do to His people"

1. What was Moses asking God not to do, which the text says He did not do?

Num. 23:19 might be read that "God will not be bribed." But not 1 Sam. 15:29!

1 Samuel 15:29 ... for he is not a man, that he should change his mind.

The reason is clearly that God is not like man, not that in this instance God has made a firm decision. How are you getting that from this text? Or that Saul was trying to bribe God?

Saul was trying to persuade God to give him back the throne. He tried to blame the people for not "utterly destroying" everything. He grabbed and tore Samuel's robe as he walked away. Saul, by his words, was trying to bribe or persuade God to go back on his decision, and God is not like man, to be bribed or persuaded in this manner. The most wicked king of all time, Manassah, repented, and God gave him back the throne. Had mManassah tried to persuade or bribe God to give him back the throne, God would not have "nacham."

But then he didn't change his plan! According to your view, he changed his response. That's almost what I believe, when the threat is conditional, or when a promise is conditional. I also believe God knows how they will choose, though.

If God knows how they will choose, the promise is no longer truly conditional, as they have no choice to choose one way or the other, nullifying for certain one end of the condition.

Well, we can't take that route, because of verses like this one:

"Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?" (Num. 23:19)

Again, if God can change his mind, then the answer is yes he does, actually...

I disagree based on this simple conclusion: Whenever God speaks, He also acts. Sometimes His action is repenting, sometimes His action is not-repenting. Whenever God promises he always fulfills. You said it yourself, God makes conditional promises. Everytime He makes a promise, He fulfills by either repenting based ont he condition, or not-repenting based otn eh condition.

If God's purpose is immutable, then we have another verse saying God doesn't change his mind, by the way.

No, that's only true if you can prove that every single thing, down to the tiniest piece of dust falling in the air is God's purpose.


BTW, why didn't you answer Numbers 14 in jeremy's last post?

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi Doogieduff,

I enjoy dialoguing with you all too, and I'm here to learn as well as share what I (think I) know!

Exodus 32:14 with Deuteronomy 10:10 "It was not his will to destroy you."

Lee: Moses' prayer was part of God's plan not to destroy them!

DD: ... this verse does not have to be taken that it was God's will from before the foundation of the world not to destroy them, but rather, when God repented of the harm He said He would do, at that time, it was not His will to destroy them.

Here is a verse which shows that this may indeed be a continued decision:

2 Kings 13:23 But the Lord was gracious to them and had compassion on them and turned to them because of His covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and would not destroy them or cast them from His presence until now.

Now, you definitely cannot prove that Moses' prayer was part of God's plan. We don't have scripture for that. You even admitted that we didn't know God's plan. I could argue that it was not God's desire (will) to destroy them, but He was going to anyways, because they deserved it.

But the condition "let me alone" (implying that Moses' prayer was required) gives us the conclusion that his prayer was in God's plan. Without the prayer, they would have been destroyed, but this was not God's will. If God was already planning to act against his desires, then how did Moses' prayer persuade him?

You say, "you can threaten someone with a plan to cause them to change," yet in this story, God is telling Moses about His threat to kill the people, not the people themselves.

But God must have forgiven them after Moses came down from the mountain, and judgment had fallen, with a possibility of more to come:

Exodus 32:30 The next day Moses said to the people, "You have committed a great sin. But now I will go up to the Lord; perhaps I can make atonement for your sin."

So I think it is plausible to hold that the threat produced a change in the people, at least in those who were spared.

Lee: I think we have "die" here in two senses [in 2 Kings 20:1], Hezekiah needed to get his heart in order or he would die physically.

DD: It sounds good, but the context just doesn't support it. Your biggest problem is that God "added" 15 years to his life. What does this mean lee? Why nothing more than He actually WAS going to die. For God to ADD 15 years to his life shows a change in how God dealt with Hezekiah.

Yes, I agree, God meant physical death, and he meant dying to self. It was one or the other, as in Romans 8:13.

DD: Well, the king understood God's decree as " He will destroy us" as verse 9 says, jonah understood God's decree as " He will destroy them" as in 4:2 jonah calls God "One who relents from doing harm," so it seems to me that both the king and jonah understood that god said He would destroy them physically, not that they would repent in 40 days and that this was their overthrow.

I take the same approach here as I did with Hezekiah, though, and say it was either/or, not just one sense of "overthrow" here. And you skipped all my Jonah questions! Why did God send Jonah, and spoil his plan? How can God be trusted, if he plans A, and then acts so as to spoil the plan himself? I really think the interpretation that God changed his plan with the Ninevites has insurmountable difficulties.

Lee: How is God not lying, if he says "X will happen," and he knows X might not happen? How is that not a lie?

DD: God's present intended plan is just that, His present intended plan. If God's changes His mind of His now past intended plan, that does not nullify the truth and validity of His once present intended plan.

Yes, but the difficulty remains, how is saying "X will happen," when you know X might not happen, not a lie? Your plan may well include the possibility that X might not happen, but that doesn't make the statement "X will happen" true.

A. Moses said to God "nacham from this harm to Your people!"
B. God "nachamed from the harm which He said He would do to His people"

1. What was Moses asking God not to do, which the text says He did not do?

Moses was asking God to not judge the people...

1 Samuel 15:29 ... for he is not a man, that he should change his mind.

Lee: The reason is clearly that God is not like man, not that in this instance God has made a firm decision.

DD: Saul was trying to persuade God to give him back the throne. He tried to blame the people for not "utterly destroying" everything. He grabbed and tore Samuel's robe as he walked away. Saul, by his words, was trying to bribe or persuade God to go back on his decision, and God is not like man, to be bribed or persuaded in this manner.

I agree that God cannot be bribed. But I don't think Saul was appealing to God, he was appealing to Samuel.

1 Samuel 15:30 Saul replied, "I have sinned. But please honor me before the elders of my people and before Israel; come back with me, so that I may worship the Lord your God."

"Honor me," Saul was concerned about being dishonored, and "the Lord your God," not "my God" here.

Lee: I also believe God knows how they will choose, though.

DD: If God knows how they will choose, the promise is no longer truly conditional, as they have no choice to choose one way or the other, nullifying for certain one end of the condition.

I believe the condition is oftentimes from our perspective, and again, the threat is given to bring about the desired result.

"Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?" (Num. 23:19)

Lee: ... if God can change his mind, then the answer is yes he does, actually...

DD: I disagree based on this simple conclusion: Whenever God speaks, He also acts. Sometimes His action is repenting, sometimes His action is not-repenting. Whenever God promises he always fulfills. You said it yourself, God makes conditional promises. Every time He makes a promise, He fulfills by either repenting based on the condition, or not-repenting based on the condition.

What you all are saying is different than a conditional promise, though! If God plans X unconditionally (or gives a condition, and the condition is met), and says X will happen, and then changes his mind, then he spoke and did not act, he promised, and did not fulfill.

Lee: If God's purpose is immutable, then we have another verse saying God doesn't change his mind [in Heb. 6:17-18].

DD: No, that's only true if you can prove that every single thing, down to the tiniest piece of dust falling in the air is God's purpose.

No, this is God's purpose I am referring to, not the extent of his control. If God's purpose cannot change, then he cannot change his mind, this verse implies.

DD: BTW, why didn't you answer Numbers 14 in jeremy's last post?

Here's a try...

Numbers 14:19 Please pardon the iniquity of this people, according to the greatness of your steadfast love, just as you have forgiven this people, from Egypt until now.

I would say here that Moses considered this similar to the other instances where God gave a condition such as "leave me alone," and hoped there was a condition, and there was one.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[GodsfreeWill]

Originally posted by lee_merrill

Here is a verse which shows that this may indeed be a continued decision:

2 Kings 13:23 But the Lord was gracious to them and had compassion on them and turned to them because of His covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and would not destroy them or cast them from His presence until now.

Not really. I agree that the Lord was gracious to them, had compassion on them, and turned to them AFTER Moses prayer.

One thing you may not realize is that a big part of the OV is that God does indeed threat, warn, etc. HOPING to get men and nations to repent. This is my response to you with Jonah and Ninevah. In Jer. 18 it says that God will DECLARE a nation to be destroyed or built up and if that nation hears His DECLARATION, and repents, He will not destroy them. God is 100% righteous. God has never killed a righteous man or nation. Now in this instance we have no scripture showing that God HOPED Moses would prayer. He may or may not have. But he question for you Lee is this, did God mean what He said when He told Moses "Now therefore, let Me alone, that My wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them. And I will make of you a great nation"? I would like a yes or no answer lee. Did God truly intend to destroy these people, spare Moses and make of him a nation greater then they?

But the condition "let me alone" (implying that Moses' prayer was required) gives us the conclusion that his prayer was in God's plan. Without the prayer, they would have been destroyed, but this was not God's will. If God was already planning to act against his desires, then how did Moses' prayer persuade him?

How do you get from point A. to point B.? How does "let me alone" imply a prayer? If I had a son and he got caught shoplifting, and the police brought him home, I would turn to my wife(if I had one) and tell her "Let me alone, that I may punish our son for what he has done." I'm not trying to get my wife to change my mind, i don't even know what she'll say. My intentions are pure, and i would be punishing our son with reason. If she responded to my honest threat (which i wholeheartedly intended to do) and explained to me that we shouldn't punish him the way I had said, I may change my mind. Why does "let me alone" imply anything except "let me alone?"

But God must have forgiven them after Moses came down from the mountain, and judgment had fallen, with a possibility of more to come:

Exodus 32:30 The next day Moses said to the people, "You have committed a great sin. But now I will go up to the Lord; perhaps I can make atonement for your sin."

So I think it is plausible to hold that the threat produced a change in the people, at least in those who were spared.

No no no. The people never heard the threat lee. God threatened in verse 10 and repented in verse 14. Moses even asked God to repent. Wht would he do this lee if God doesn't repent? Moses knew God as a friend, spoke to Him face to face (Ex. 33:11). Do you mean to tell me that you happen to know God on a more personal level than Moses did? It's clear, moses knew God as a God who repented. That's why He asked Him to repent. You don't ask God to do something that you know He does not do.

Yes, I agree, God meant physical death, and he meant dying to self. It was one or the other, as in Romans 8:13.

You seem to find it perfectly fine to take a strictly New Testament idea and apply it all the way back int he OT. I find this hard to do. "Dying to self" is not an OT idea, therefore I find no reason to apply it here. Furthermore, you've admitted that God changed His mind. If God meant that Hezekiah was going to die physically (which you've admitted He meant above) then when God added 15 years to Hezekiah's life, He was changing when Hezekiah was actually going to die. God stated Hezekiah would die at point A. This was literally true because of Hezekiah's current physiocal, sick state. Hezekiah prayed, and God healed him, and ADDED 15 years to his life, now saying, Hezekiak will live until point A. plus 15 years. The text is clear.

I take the same approach here as I did with Hezekiah, though, and say it was either/or, not just one sense of "overthrow" here. And you skipped all my Jonah questions! Why did God send Jonah, and spoil his plan? How can God be trusted, if he plans A, and then acts so as to spoil the plan himself? I really think the interpretation that God changed his plan with the Ninevites has insurmountable difficulties.

I don't see any difficulties. God hopes that all men are saved lee! (1 Tim. 2:4) That includes Ninevah! God sent Jonah to forewarn them of their impending destruction HOPING they would repent. If they didn't repent at Jonah's preaching, God would have destroyed them!

Yes, but the difficulty remains, how is saying "X will happen," when you know X might not happen, not a lie? Your plan may well include the possibility that X might not happen, but that doesn't make the statement "X will happen" true.

How is saying "X will happen" (Hezekiah will die physically) when you know "X WILL NOT happen" (Hezekiah will live 15 more years) not a lie? When God says "X will happen" He means just that "X will happen." His present stated intention is 100% true. Luckily God will repent if we repent, changing the original stated intention of "X will happen" because God will not kill a righteous man. What does God do lee if an unrighteous man repents and becomes righteous? If God declares an unrighteous man destruction, and that man repents unto righteousness, does God now kill a righteous man and fall from moral perfection? Well, no He changes HIs mind based on His own set principles laid out in Jer. 18 and Eze. 18.

Moses was asking God to not judge the people...

That's weak. Moses was asking God to "Turn from Your fierce wrath, and repent from this harm to Your people." The harm was utter destruction. Because of Moses prayer God "repented from the harm which He said He would do to His people."

I agree that God cannot be bribed. But I don't think Saul was appealing to God, he was appealing to Samuel.

1 Samuel 15:30 Saul replied, "I have sinned. But please honor me before the elders of my people and before Israel; come back with me, so that I may worship the Lord your God."

"Honor me," Saul was concerned about being dishonored, and "the Lord your God," not "my God" here.

God spoke to Saul through Samuel. Saul spoke to God through Samuel. It's that simple. Let me ask you this. In verse 25 Saul says to Samuel "Now therefore, please pardon my sin, and return with me, that I may worship the Lord." Now lee, does Samuel have the power to forgive sins? I think not...

I believe the condition is oftentimes from our perspective, and again, the threat is given to bring about the desired result.

If the future is foreknown and therefore set in stone, then there is no thing as a true conditional prophecy. Even though we have no knowledge of the future, we are still slaves to the future that is foreknown by God. Just because the future cannot be seen from our perspective doesn't negate the fact that it is set in stone, and therefore we have no free will to choose other than what is foreknown by God. We may think we're choosing freely, but that's only because the set future is out of our perspective.

What you all are saying is different than a conditional promise, though! If God plans X unconditionally (or gives a condition, and the condition is met), and says X will happen, and then changes his mind, then he spoke and did not act, he promised, and did not fulfill.

Repenting from a prestated harm is indeed acting. That's what Jer. 18 and Exe. explicitly state.

No, this is God's purpose I am referring to, not the extent of his control. If God's purpose cannot change, then he cannot change his mind, this verse implies.

What purpose is this verse speaking about? Every little choice God makes? No. God is speaking of salvation after endurance. "But imitate those who through faith and patience inherit the promises" (vs. 12)

Here's a try...

Numbers 14:19 Please pardon the iniquity of this people, according to the greatness of your steadfast love, just as you have forgiven this people, from Egypt until now.

I would say here that Moses considered this similar to the other instances where God gave a condition such as "leave me alone," and hoped there was a condition, and there was one.

Blessings,
Lee

Nice try, but it doesn't seem to work.

1. How is "let me alone" a condition?
2. Where is the condition in Numbers 14?
3. Did God mean what He said in verse 12, when He said, "I will strike them with the pestilence and disinherit them, and I will make of you a nation greater and mightier than they."?

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi Doogieduff,

Lee: Here is a verse which shows that this may indeed be a continued decision:

2 Kings 13:23 But the Lord was gracious to them ... and would not destroy them or cast them from His presence until now.

DD: Not really. I agree that the Lord was gracious to them, had compassion on them, and turned to them AFTER Moses prayer.

But you haven't shown how 2 Ki. 13:23 is consistent with your position. I need an explanation of this verse, not a restatement of your view of the meaning of Dt. 10:10. But about Dt. 10:10! Are you saying it was not God's will to destroy them, after Moses' prayer? Why would Moses mention that, though? He had already said the Lord listened to him. I think the plain sense here is that the Lord listened, because it was not his will to destroy them.

DD: ... did God mean what He said when He told Moses "Now therefore, let Me alone, that My wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them. And I will make of you a great nation"?

Yes, he meant the threat, and the condition (we can't leave that out!). The condition was from Moses' perspective, because God knew what Moses would choose. Again, the summary statement here is "it was not his will to destroy them," I believe we should interpret all this account in light of this statement.

Lee: ... the condition "let me alone" (implying that Moses' prayer was required) gives us the conclusion that his prayer was in God's plan.

DD: If she responded to my honest threat (which i wholeheartedly intended to do) and explained to me that we shouldn't punish him the way I had said, I may change my mind. Why does "let me alone" imply anything except "let me alone?"

"Let me alone" implies that if Moses does nothing, the people will be destroyed. There is a condition here, "If you leave me alone, I will destroy them." Thus your analogy is different than the situation with Moses, God did not wholeheartedly intend to destroy the people. That is what I hold here, and I think this is a consistent view of the passage. Even in your analogy, "let me alone" implies that you thought your wife might try and change your mind, I think. Why would you tell her, "let me alone," if you thought she wouldn't interfere, or that even if she did, it wouldn't make any difference?

Lee: But God must have forgiven them after Moses came down from the mountain, and judgment had fallen, with a possibility of more to come:

Exodus 32:30 The next day Moses said to the people, "You have committed a great sin. But now I will go up to the Lord; perhaps I can make atonement for your sin."

DD: The people never heard the threat lee. God threatened in verse 10 and repented in verse 14. Moses even asked God to repent.

Deuteronomy 10:10 Now I had stayed on the mountain forty days and nights, as I did the first time, and the Lord listened to me at this time also.

This shows that Moses' prayer, and the Lord listening to him, was after he came down from the mountain, after the Levites went through the camp putting flagrant sinful people to death, and after Moses went back up the mountain again, to pray for them. Thus I think Ex. 32:14 refers to Dt. 10:10, and is a glance ahead, in this account. Otherwise you must say God listened, then he changed his mind back, and then listened again.

Lee: Yes, I agree, God meant physical death, and he meant dying to self. It was one or the other, as in Romans 8:13.

DD: "Dying to self" is not an OT idea, therefore I find no reason to apply it here. Furthermore, you've admitted that God changed His mind.

No, I'm saying God meant "one or the other," though Hezekiah may have only understood physical death. Thus God changed his response, but not his plan, since he knew the effect of what he said, and how Hezekiah would choose. And why is dying to self not for OT saints, too?

Isaiah 38:15 I will walk humbly all my years because of this anguish of my soul.

You have to hold either that OT saints didn't have a sinful nature, or that their sinful nature did not need to be put to death, for them to be able to overcome sin, or that they weren't able to overcome sin.

Lee: Why did God send Jonah, and spoil his plan? How can God be trusted, if he plans A, and then acts so as to spoil the plan himself?

DD: I don't see any difficulties. God hopes that all men are saved lee! (1 Tim. 2:4) That includes Ninevah! God sent Jonah to forewarn them of their impending destruction HOPING they would repent. If they didn't repent at Jonah's preaching, God would have destroyed them!

Then God didn't change his overall plan! I agree! And his plan succeeded. Only I hold that God wasn't hoping...

Lee: ... how is saying "X will happen," when you know X might not happen, not a lie?

DD: How is saying "X will happen" (Hezekiah will die physically) when you know "X WILL NOT happen" (Hezekiah will live 15 more years) not a lie?

When "die" can have two different senses:

John 11:25-26 He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die.

DD: When God says "X will happen" He means just that "X will happen." His present stated intention is 100% true.

But I'm not talking about God's intent! I'm talking about statements about the future, about predictions. If God makes a prediction, with no conditions (that's what the OV says about Jonah, or at least they used to say that), all the while knowing that the prediction may indeed not turn out, that is telling a lie, plain and simple.

Lee: I agree that God cannot be bribed. But I don't think Saul was appealing to God, he was appealing to Samuel.

DD: God spoke to Saul through Samuel. Saul spoke to God through Samuel. It's that simple. Let me ask you this. In verse 25 Saul says to Samuel "Now therefore, please pardon my sin, and return with me, that I may worship the Lord." Now lee, does Samuel have the power to forgive sins?

I would say that Saul was confused here. But he was indeed asking Samuel, not God. Are you saying Saul was asking God, through Samuel, to forgive him? Without mentioning God? And even seeming to be asking for Samuel to forgive? That's very strained, I think...

Lee: I believe the condition is oftentimes from our perspective, and again, the threat is given to bring about the desired result.

DD: If the future is foreknown and therefore set in stone, then there is no thing as a true conditional prophecy. Even though we have no knowledge of the future, we are still slaves to the future that is foreknown by God. Just because the future cannot be seen from our perspective doesn't negate the fact that it is set in stone, and therefore we have no free will to choose other than what is foreknown by God. We may think we're choosing freely, but that's only because the set future is out of our perspective.

I believe that believers can choose! And that God knows their choices, thus there are real conditions. But not for unbelievers.

I believe God know his future choices! And yet he chooses freely. Do you hold, even in the OV, that God cannot know any of his decisions, before he actually makes them? That he finds out what he is going to decide, at the moment of his decision, and not before?

Let's take the creation of the world as an example. Did God not know, before the exact moment when he said "Let there be light!" that he was going to create the world? If he did know this, was his decision to create, at that moment, not a free decision?

Lee: If God plans X unconditionally (or gives a condition, and the condition is met), and says X will happen, and then changes his mind, then he spoke and did not act, he promised, and did not fulfill.

DD: Repenting from a prestated harm is indeed acting. That's what Jer. 18 and Exe. explicitly state.

But what if the promise is that God will act? A threat of judgment, re Jer 18. And he decides not to? Then did he still act somehow? I don't think this will do.

The plain meaning here is "does he promise, and not fulfill?" i.e. does he say X unconditionally, or with a condition, that is then fulfilled, and not do what he promised? Not something else. Otherwise this statement is meaningless, actually, "does he promise X, and then never do anything afterwards?"

Lee: If God's purpose cannot change, then he cannot change his mind, [Heb. 6:18] implies.

DD: What purpose is this verse speaking about? Every little choice God makes? No. God is speaking of salvation after endurance. "But imitate those who through faith and patience inherit the promises" (vs. 12)

But if "purpose" means "purpose in this instance," then what assurance did Abraham have? The promise to him was to bless him and give him many descendants. How does that assure us of God's unchanging purpose for us? The only way this works, I think, is if God's purpose, in any area, never changes. Then we can see Abraham having confidence in God's promise, and apply this to ourselves.

Numbers 14:19 Please pardon the iniquity of this people, according to the greatness of your steadfast love, just as you have forgiven this people, from Egypt until now.

Lee: I would say here that Moses considered this similar to the other instances where God gave a condition such as "leave me alone," and hoped there was a condition, and there was one.

1. How is "let me alone" a condition?
2. Where is the condition in Numbers 14?
3. Did God mean what He said in verse 12, when He said, "I will strike them with the pestilence and disinherit them, and I will make of you a nation greater and mightier than they."?

1. "Let me alone" is a condition in that, if Moses were to let God along, the judgment would come. If Moses were not to let God alone, then the judgment could be averted.

2. I agree there is not a stated condition in Numbers 14, but as I said, Moses apparently hoped that there was one, and he was correct.

3. God's threat certainly brought to mind previous instances where he had said this, and the previous instances had the condition stated. If there was a condition here (Moses thought there was), then God meant the whole statement, with the condition...

Blessings,
Lee

 

[GodsfreeWill]

Originally posted by lee_merrill

Hi Doogieduff,
But you haven't shown how 2 Ki. 13:23 is consistent with your position.

2 Kings 13:23
23 But the Lord was gracious to them, had compassion on them, and regarded them, because of His covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and would not yet destroy them or cast them from His presence.

This verse is simply stating facts. The Lord was gracious to them. Why? Moses prayed and told God of His previous covenant. The Lord had compassion on them. Why? Moses prayed and told God of His previous covenant. The Lord regarded them. Why? Moses prayed and told God of His previous covenant. So what's our conclusion from this account of what happened in Exodus 32? The Lord would not yet destroy them or cast them from His presence because Moses prayed to God of His covenant.

I need an explanation of this verse, not a restatement of your view of the meaning of Dt. 10:10. But about Dt. 10:10! Are you saying it was not God's will to destroy them, after Moses' prayer? Why would Moses mention that, though? He had already said the Lord listened to him. I think the plain sense here is that the Lord listened, because it was not his will to destroy them.

I've already explained it and you've failed to deal with the Hebrew language of this verse. The Deut. 10 passage uses the Hebrew verb "avah" which can be understood as point action, similar to the aorist tense in greek. This makes sense to me that the verse is clearly saying that it was not God's will to destroy them (point action) when He repented of the destruction He previously said. Meaning, this verse does not have to be taken that it was God's will from before the foundation of the world not to destroy them, but rather, when God repented of the harm He said He would do, at that time, it was not His will to destroy them. The Lord listened to Moses prayer, because that's what our God does. He listens to our prayers.

Yes, he meant the threat, and the condition (we can't leave that out!). The condition was from Moses' perspective, because God knew what Moses would choose. Again, the summary statement here is "it was not his will to destroy them," I believe we should interpret all this account in light of this statement.

As I've dealt with before, it was not God's CHOICE to destroy them. This is the proper translation form the Hebrew "avah." Check out the NKJV.

Deut 10:10 (NKJV)
10 "As at the first time, I stayed in the mountain forty days and forty nights; the Lord also heard me at that time, and the Lord chose not to destroy you.

It was a choice at the time of Moses prayer. God chose not to destroy them at the time of Moses prayer. If you know a little greek and understand the aorist tense, this will make beautiful sense. Point action. If you know spanish, let me know, there's another very good way to explain this hebrew tense with spanish, that we don't have in the english language.

"Let me alone" implies that if Moses does nothing, the people will be destroyed. There is a condition here, "If you leave me alone, I will destroy them." Thus your analogy is different than the situation with Moses, God did not wholeheartedly intend to destroy the people. That is what I hold here, and I think this is a consistent view of the passage. Even in your analogy, "let me alone" implies that you thought your wife might try and change your mind, I think. Why would you tell her, "let me alone," if you thought she wouldn't interfere, or that even if she did, it wouldn't make any difference?

I obviously would tell her to let me alone so that she would not have to witness me punishing our child. Obvisously, God is going to utterly destroy these people. This wouldn't include Moses, nor would Moses want to witness such an event.

Your conclusion doesn't make sense to me. Why would God leave it up to Moses to determine these wicked people's fate? How does that work? We don't seem to have a biblical basis for God repenting in this manner. Just because He tells one man, who's righteous, that if he prays, He will no longer destroy a bunch of unrighteous men. Also lee, if God DID NOT intend to destroy them, then why He did He destroy 3000 of them still? Also, the text clearly says thrice, that God was filled with wrath. (vs. 10, vs. 11, vs.12) How can God be filled with wrath, if indeed He intends not (as you say) to even destroy these people? Nothing adds up here lee.

What does it mean lee that He repented of the harm He said He would?
If God is truly filled with wrath, can't we conclude that He does intend to destroy these poeple?
Doesn't the fact that He destroyed 300 of these people further show that he did intend to destroy these people, and truly was filled with wrath?
According to your view, why did God repent if indeed the people hadn't even heard the threat?

Deuteronomy 10:10 Now I had stayed on the mountain forty days and nights, as I did the first time, and the Lord listened to me at this time also.

This shows that Moses' prayer, and the Lord listening to him, was after he came down from the mountain, after the Levites went through the camp putting flagrant sinful people to death, and after Moses went back up the mountain again, to pray for them. Thus I think Ex. 32:14 refers to Dt. 10:10, and is a glance ahead, in this account. Otherwise you must say God listened, then he changed his mind back, and then listened again.

We can talk translations again. I think the proper translation here is heard, not listened. God heard Moses prayer again, because He prayed again. See NKJV again. We don't want to imply that God has selective hearing, nor that Moses can tell God what to do and God listens to him like he has some authority over Him. God heard His prayer again, because he prayed again. It's very simple to me. God can't hear a prayer if we don't indeed pray.

No, I'm saying God meant "one or the other," though Hezekiah may have only understood physical death. Thus God changed his response, but not his plan, since he knew the effect of what he said, and how Hezekiah would choose. And why is dying to self not for OT saints, too?

Isaiah 38:15 I will walk humbly all my years because of this anguish of my soul.

You have to hold either that OT saints didn't have a sinful nature, or that their sinful nature did not need to be put to death, for them to be able to overcome sin, or that they weren't able to overcome sin.

So your changing your mind now? You said He meant both, now you seem to be retracting that statement. Well, lee, I've proven that God HAD to have meant physical death, because He indeed ADDED 15 years to Hezekiah's life. You need to deal with the text. As for the text meaning "dying to self" I don't feel we have any reason to believe that this is the case here. Let me show you why. First and foremost, the text in Isaiah 38 and 2 Kings 20 CLEARLY state Hezekiah was PHYSICALLY sick.

2 Kings 20:2 In those days Hezekiah was sick and near death.
2 Kings 20:5 "I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; surely I will heal you.
Isaiah 38:5 surely I will add to your days fifteen years.
Isaiah 38:9 This is the writing of Hezekiah king of Judah, when he had been sick and had recovered from his sickness

Hezekiah was physically sick, God told Him He would die physically, Hezekiah feard death, and prayed and cried because God said this. God heard His prayer and healed him, and ADDED 15 years to His life. The future is open.

Then God didn't change his overall plan! I agree! And his plan succeeded. Only I hold that God wasn't hoping...

But He did change His plan of destroying Ninevah in 40 days.

When "die" can have two different senses:

John 11:25-26 He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die.

What are the two senses lee and how do they fit into the story of Hezekiah?

But I'm not talking about God's intent! I'm talking about statements about the future, about predictions. If God makes a prediction, with no conditions (that's what the OV says about Jonah, or at least they used to say that), all the while knowing that the prediction may indeed not turn out, that is telling a lie, plain and simple.

Prophecy is not predictive. That's your misunderstanding of scripture. The God of the Bible does not predict.

I would say that Saul was confused here. But he was indeed asking Samuel, not God. Are you saying Saul was asking God, through Samuel, to forgive him? Without mentioning God? And even seeming to be asking for Samuel to forgive? That's very strained, I think...

I would say Saul wasn't confused. He was speaking to God through Samuel.

I believe that believers can choose! And that God knows their choices, thus there are real conditions. But not for unbelievers.

I believe God know his future choices! And yet he chooses freely. Do you hold, even in the OV, that God cannot know any of his decisions, before he actually makes them? That he finds out what he is going to decide, at the moment of his decision, and not before?

Let's take the creation of the world as an example. Did God not know, before the exact moment when he said "Let there be light!" that he was going to create the world? If he did know this, was his decision to create, at that moment, not a free decision?

But we aren't really choosing lee. In that case, we think we're chossing, but the fact that the future remains out of our perspective makes us think we're choosing, when in reality we're just doing what God foreknows we will do. I will aslo argue that god chose to create the world BEFORE He foresaw Himself creating. This is something you have to deal with. What came first? Did God foreknow the future exhaustively, including foreseeing Himself creating the universe, before He ever made the free will decision to actually create the world?

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi Doogieduff,

2 Kings 13:23
23 But the Lord was gracious to them, had compassion on them, and regarded them, because of His covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and would not yet destroy them or cast them from His presence.

DD: This verse is simply stating facts. The Lord was gracious to them. Why? Moses prayed and told God of His previous covenant.

But this covers more than just the incident with Moses, this states that this was God's continuing attitude, he "would not yet destroy them" up to this time, in 2 Kings. Thus God's decision with Moses could well be a continuing one, and Moses' prayer could be part of that plan.

Lee: He had already said the Lord listened to him. I think the plain sense here is that the Lord listened, because it was not his will to destroy them.

DD: I've already explained it and you've failed to deal with the Hebrew language of this verse. The Deut. 10 passage uses the Hebrew verb "avah" which can be understood as point action, similar to the aorist tense in greek.

Deut 10:10 (NKJV)
10 "As at the first time, I stayed in the mountain forty days and forty nights; the Lord also heard me at that time, and the Lord chose not to destroy you.

It was a choice at the time of Moses prayer.

Yes, but the same exact word and verb form is used in 2 Kings 13:23. Thus this does not necessarily mean point action in Dt. 10:10, as in the ESV, NASB, UNASB, and the NIV:

Deuteronomy 10:10 "… the Lord was not willing to destroy you." (UNASB)

Lee: Even in your analogy, "let me alone" implies that you thought your wife might try and change your mind...

DD: I obviously would tell her to let me alone so that she would not have to witness me punishing our child. Obviously, God is going to utterly destroy these people. This wouldn't include Moses, nor would Moses want to witness such an event.

Then we should have "hide your face," not "leave me alone."

DD: Why would God leave it up to Moses to determine these wicked people's fate?

No, it was God's plan not to destroy them, and Moses' prayer was part of that plan. God knew how Moses would respond.

DD: … if God DID NOT intend to destroy them, then why He did He destroy 3000 of them still? Also, the text clearly says thrice, that God was filled with wrath. (vs. 10, vs. 11, vs.12) How can God be filled with wrath, if indeed He intends not (as you say) to even destroy these people?

Not his intent to destroy them all, the mercy was for the nation Moses was leading, but not for every individual. And God's wrath is against sin, but it was turned aside.

Psalm 78:38 Yet he was merciful; he forgave their iniquities and did not destroy them. Time after time he restrained his anger and did not stir up his full wrath.

DD: According to your view, why did God repent if indeed the people hadn't even heard the threat?

There was more work to be done after Moses came down! Judgment, then Moses went back up again, and prayed, and then God turned from all his anger.

DD: I think the proper translation here is heard, not listened.

But God did listen as well as hear! And Moses refers to the whole sequence here, I think, in Dt. 10:10, and not to God changing his mind, then changing it back, and then Moses prayed, and God changed his mind again.

Lee: I'm saying God meant "one or the other," though Hezekiah may have only understood physical death.

DD: You said He meant both, now you seem to be retracting that statement. Well, lee, I've proven that God HAD to have meant physical death, because He indeed ADDED 15 years to Hezekiah's life.

I thought I meant "one or the other" all the way through! Sorry if I didn't express my thoughts clearly. And yes, physical death was meant, if Hezekiah didn't change. How is it impossible that two senses were meant here, and it was one or the other?

Genesis 2:17 "… for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

Two senses here! Die physically, later on, and die spiritually, immediately.

Lee: When "die" can have two different senses:

John 11:25-26 He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die.

DD: What are the two senses lee and how do they fit into the story of Hezekiah?

I take "live, even though he dies" as referring to physical death, and "never die" as referring to spiritual death. Thus death in the story of Hezekiah could have meant "it will be physical death, or death like this":

Galatians 2:19 For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God.

Isaiah 38:16 "O Lord, by these things men live; And in all these is the life of my spirit; O restore me to health, and let me live!

Life in two different senses here! "My spirit lives," "let me live [physically]".

Lee: Then God didn't change his overall plan! I agree!

DD: But He did change His plan of destroying Ninevah in 40 days.

Not if he knew the outcome! And gave the threat to bring it about.

Jonah 4:2 And he prayed to the Lord and said, "O Lord, is not this what I said when I was yet in my country?"

Jonah thought it would turn out this way, too!

Lee: But I'm not talking about God's intent! I'm talking about statements about the future, about predictions.

DD: Prophecy is not predictive. That's your misunderstanding of scripture. The God of the Bible does not predict.

Isaiah 46:10 I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come.

Isaiah 41:22-23 Bring in your idols to tell us what is going to happen. Tell us what the former things were, so that we may consider them and know their final outcome. Or declare to us the things to come, tell us what the future holds, so we may know that you are gods.

That's prediction!

Lee: If God makes a prediction, with no conditions, all the while knowing that the prediction may indeed not turn out, that is telling a lie, plain and simple.

It is lying, sorry, but it is. You did skip this point...

I would say Saul wasn't confused. He was speaking to God through Samuel.

I don't think this will appear in the commentaries, though!

"At first Saul's plea to Samuel for forgiveness (v. 25) falls on deaf ears (v. 26)" (Expositor's Bible Commentary).

No, Saul is not praying, but trying to reverse the rejection by Samuel, he already says "the Lord your God," not "my God" here.

DD: What came first? Did God foreknow the future exhaustively, including foreseeing Himself creating the universe, before He ever made the free will decision to actually create the world?

I believe that God is not in time, "Before Abraham was, I am!" (Jn. 8:58). So God does not move through time like we do (it's sort of another dimension, says relativity, and God is omnipresent), thus there is not the dilemma of knowing a decision at one moment, and making it the next.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[godrulz]

Rev. 1:8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega, says the Lord God, who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."

These are tensed expressions. God is everlasting, experiencing endless succession, duration, and sequence because He is personal.

Timelessness or 'eternal now' are Greek philosophical concepts (Augustinian; Platonic) and contradict the Hebraic revelation of how God experiences reality in relation to the universe.

I am= God is the self-existent one, uncreated, with no beginning or end.

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi Godrulz,

Rev. 1:8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega, says the Lord God, who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."

Godrulz: These are tensed expressions. God is everlasting, experiencing endless succession, duration, and sequence because He is personal.

Timelessness or 'eternal now' are Greek philosophical concepts (Augustinian; Platonic) and contradict the Hebraic revelation of how God experiences reality in relation to the universe.

I am= God is the self-existent one, uncreated, with no beginning or end.

Well, once you have foreknowledge, you have "eternal now." So I don't think the philosophers are required.

Isaiah 46:10 I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come.

Not "a specific end," but "the end," choose an ending point! And God can tell you what will be there. And just to make it clear!

Isaiah 46:10 I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.

"All I please," thus no detours, and no mistakes, God is speaking of all his purposes, and thus, I think, includes all the future in his previous statement. For if God could not know all the future, then he could be mistaken, and his purpose would not always stand, as the OV teaches…

Blessings,
Lee

 

[godrulz]

Is. 46 and 48 are favorite texts of Open Theists. Read the verses in context carefully. The reason His purposes come to pass is due to His omnicompetence and ABILITY, not His supposed 'foreknowledge'.

There are 2 motifs in Scripture. Some of the future is open and unknowable as a certainty/actuality until it happens. They are correctly known as possibilities before that (most free will mundane and moral choices). Some of the future is predestined and known, because God intends to bring certain things to pass, regardless of what man or Satan does or does not do. To only quote the last group of 'proof texts' and to ignore the other motif leads to an imbalanced view of predestination and foreknowledge. Foreknowing future contingencies is a logical contradiction/absurdity. Omnipotence is the ability to do all that is logically doable. Omniscience is to know all that is logically knowable. It is not a deficiency in omniscience to know a nothing. God correctly knows reality as it is, distinguishing past, present, and future (not experiencing it in a philosophical instant).