When I wrote recently about the view that many have, either implicitly or explicitly, that God has failed in some sense or another, one commenter assured me that it was, in fact, biblical. God fails to accomplish His will. End of story. As proof, he offered several passages of Scripture.
One that was typical was Genesis 6:6 (which, humorously, was listed as "6:66" ... which is the number of the mark of the beast, is it not?). The text in question is, "The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart." (Genesis 6:6 NASB). Well, now, that's quite clear, isn't it? It says He was sorry. Other translations say "it repented" Him (KJV, DRB) or that He "repented" (LITV, YLT) or the like.
The Hebrew word is nâcham. It means, most literally, "to sigh". As such, it implies "to be sorry, console or rue; or to avenge (oneself)" and is translated in various places as "comfort (self), ease [one’s self], repent (-er, -ing, self)" (KJV). The word and its ambiguous translation ("was sorry" or "repented" -- not quite the same thing) appears in a couple of Old Testament places, such as 1 Sam 15:11 and 1 Sam 15:35 with the same sense. God was nâcham about something. Now, the meaning of words in the Bible is very important, but, as in all languages, the meaning is determined in part by the word and in part by the context. In fact, all of Scripture is the context for Scripture, so it is important to compare the context of Scripture with the word in question to see if it fits.
So here's what we do know. We know that "The Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind." (1 Sam 15:29). (interesting, isn't it, that it's in the same context as two of the nâcham references?) God does not change His mind. There is no ambiguity there. We know that "In Your book were all written the days that were ordained for me, when as yet there was not one of them." (Psa 139:16). There is no ambiguity when God says, "Remember the former things long past, for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things which have not been done, saying, 'My purpose will be established, and I will accomplish all My good pleasure.'" (Isa 46:9-10). If God, from the beginning, declares the end and, in ancient times before things are done, declares what will be done, we know He knows everything that will occur. So, here's what we know for certain. When it says, "The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth", it does not mean that He was surprised or changed His mind.
So, we have some options here. We can choose to read the text to say that God does repent -- change His mind because He has new information -- or we can say that this is not the proper understanding of the text. If we choose the former, we also have to figure out why all of Christendom got it wrong all these centuries and why the Holy Spirit failed in His task of leading us to the truth. We have to conclude that God does change His mind and does not know the end from the beginning or record the days of your life before you're born. We can safely conclude that Scripture is actually in contradiction to Scripture, God is not believably represented in the Bible, and the book we have for defining our faith is not a reliable book.
So ... if these "God repents" texts do not mean that God was surprised or repented or changed His mind, what do they mean. Well, if we interpret from the explicit to the implicit, keeping in mind the word in use, I don't think it's too hard to see. God sighed. That's the literal wording, isn't it? God saw where His creation had gone and sighed. He knew it was coming and He knew what would happen and it was, in fact, His plan, but like Jesus at Lazarus's grave -- knowing He would be raising him from the dead -- He was sad that it came to this.
This isn't too hard to see, even in human terms. A couple days ago we here in Arizona had the single highest rainfall in a single day in our recorded history. It wasn't the hundred year flood or the five hundred year flood; it was the thousand year flood. Homes were inundated, roads were covered, the interstate was closed. It was a mess. In an interview with the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) representative about how it happened that I-10 could be flooded, he said it was to be expected. You see, Arizona doesn't place a high budget on flood control because, well, we don't have floods like this. This guy knew it would happen someday and wished they could have put more money toward it and all that, but he was still sad that it happened and still was going ahead with what had to be done. That's God. He knew when He made Adam that he would sin and knew when He didn't terminate Adam and Eve that some day He'd have to wipe out the world. It wasn't pleasant, and God ... sighed. But He didn't change His mind and He didn't get caught by surprise and He did proceed to accomplish what He intended to accomplish. And He still does.
Or, as I said, we don't have a God who can declare the end from the beginning, write down your days before you're born, work all things after the counsel of His will (Eph 1:11), or actually be the God described in the Bible.
Update: (Oct 8, 2014)
Interesting that Kevin DeYoung and John Piper are just two teachers who say the same thing I do on the topic.
36 comments:
Jeremiah 18:1-11
The word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord: 2 “Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there I will let you hear my words.” 3 So I went down to the potter's house, and there he was working at his wheel. 4 And the vessel he was making of clay was spoiled in the potter's hand, and he reworked it into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to do.
5 Then the word of the Lord came to me: 6 “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter has done? declares the Lord. Behold, like the clay in the potter's hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. 7 If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, 8 and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it. 9 And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, 10 and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it. 11 Now, therefore, say to the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem: ‘Thus says the Lord, Behold, I am shaping disaster against you and devising a plan against you. Return, every one from his evil way, and amend your ways and your deeds.’
This passage seems to explicitly state, that if a nation repents God will "relent of the disaster I intended to do to it" This seems directly at odds with your contention that, "When it says, "The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth", it does not mean that He was surprised or changed His mind."
Then, you would say you're satisfied with the contradiction. And I would say that God knew what He would be doing. (Note that "relent" is not "change His mind"; it is "stop doing what He is doing".)
No. I would disagree with your interpretation given for the 1 Samuel 15:29, Psa 139:16, Isa 46:9-10.
1 Samuel is highlighting that Saul lied, and God doesn't lie or change his mind. It is a contrast to the actions of Saul. It very easily could be just speaking of this circumstance, not an absolute truth.
Psal 139:16 NKJV 16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being imperfect; and in Thy book all my members were written, which in continuity were fashioned, when as yet there were none of them.
This is talking about the formation in the womb. Not talking about the days ordained.
Isa 46 is a contrast between the active God of the Israelites and the inactive idols they are worshiping. God is saying that he will accomplish what he wants, and their idols will do nothing. It doesn't speak to his unchangeable plan, it in fact speaks to his active work in and through his people.
John Sanders, open theist:
First, one could say that God had set His mind on doing something, namely, bring judgment upon Israel, and yet, Moses persuaded God to do otherwise. Moses has a relationship with God such that God values what Moses desires. If Moses interprets God’s intentions in an unfavorable way and God values his relationship with Moses, then God must either persuade Moses or concede his request. It is unlikely that Moses presents God with new information. The real basis for the change in God’s decision comes from a forceful presentation by one who is in a special relationship with God. With Moses’ prayer, the decision-making situation is now altered for God. Being in relationship with Moses, God is willing to allow him to influence the path he will take. God permits human input into the divine future. One of the most remarkable features in the Old Testament is that people can argue with God and win. God can be persuaded to change His mind. We can assume that, for Sanders, it is not the case that God wasn’t fully convinced initially, but that He was totally and completely convinced that His decision to judge the Israelites was both right and good. However, Moses, through prayer and petition, literally “changed” the mind of God, so that God would, in turn, “repent” of His carrying out judgment. Does his belief hold any weight, theologically speaking? I would say no. Furthermore, how does one reconcile Ex. 32:14 with Numbers 23:19 where it says, “God is not a man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind”?
Thomas Whitelaw:
His view claims that a hermeneutical principle of anthropomorphism is needed here. Says Whitelaw, “Changes of purpose are, of course, attributed to God by an “economy,” or accommodation of the truth to human modes of speech and conception. “God is not a man that he should repent.” He “knows the end from the beginning.” When he threatened to destroy Israel, he knew that he would spare; but, as he communicated to Moses, first his anger, and then, at a later period, his intention to spare, he is said to have “repented.” The expression is an anthropomorphic one, like so many others… What Whitelaw is saying here is that, when it comes to “changes of purpose” in God’s dealings with man, a certain “accommodation” is made so as to help “fit” this so-called “change” into a way so that man can grasp it. This “accommodation” is obviously for man’s sake, not God’s. It is, as it were, anthropomorphism. God is communicating to His creatures—who are obviously not on the same intellectual scale as Himself—in such a way so that they might better understand.
If we do not see anthropomorphism in the “repenting passages,” then we are left with the necessary obligation to deny Numbers 23:19 outright. But if we do see anthropomorphism in the “repenting passages,” then we can affirm Numbers 23:19 and other passages like it. Therefore, the line is not arbitrary; it is necessary.
If God truly can “change His mind” and if He does make cosmic “mistakes” that are either based upon misinformation or previously unknown facts, then our everlasting and blessed hope as Christians stands on shaky ground. If there is no divine plan, and if there is no planned and sure victory for the saints of God, then our hope in an everlasting, delightful eternity should, in all consistency, be forfeited. For our hope in Christ is grounded upon no other than the idea that Christ carries out His Father’s plan to the very end, as well as the fact that this plan is unalterable. To be sure, the historic Christian faith has always been based upon this assurance, not risk (Hebrews 11:1).
"If God truly can 'change His mind' and if He does make cosmic 'mistakes' that are either based upon misinformation or previously unknown facts, then our everlasting and blessed hope as Christians stands on shaky ground."
I agree with what you wrote, but in this sentence I think you're being generous. "Shaky ground"? I think our hope can only be considered unsettled and unreliable ... at best.
Oh, and you're free to disagree with my understanding of the texts in question. Note that you do so as a "newcomer" in contradiction to all historical, orthodox understanding of the concepts. But I'm pretty sure you're fine with that.
So you would argue that God doesn't change His mind in one, single incident, but could easily do so any other time. Of course, that becomes problematic when the claim that God doesn't change His mind is repeated in Scripture. He told Balaam the same thing in Num 23:19. David made the same claim in Psa 110:4. And the author of Hebrews repeated the claim in Heb 7:21. In order for God to change His mind, He has to receive new or improved information. Receiving new or improved information means He is not and never was Omniscient. But, then, you don't believe He is, so that's no problem for you. But it still makes the repeated claim that He doesn't change His mind a problem for you. In Malachi 3:6, when God claims "I, the LORD, do not change", you will have to assume He does.
As for your requirement that all current translators of Psa 136 are dead wrong about it being "days" and only "members" is allowed (It's interesting to me that the word "members" isn't even in the text.) I suppose we can work with that. First, I'm a little confused because when I looked up the NKJV text it said, "Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me, When as yet there were none of them." I would guess you're using the KJV, not the NKJV. And, of course, in the actual text, where the KJV translates it as "in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them", the word "continuance" is the Hebrew yôm which means "days" ... you know, like every modern version translates it. But, okay, let's just say they're all wrong (including the NKJV) and the KJV is right. So, you're saying that God does know in advance how his body would be formed "when as yet there was none of them." Isn't that foreknowledge? Isn't that knowing in advance what He cannot know because it hadn't happened? Aren't you giving God knowledge you've already claimed He didn't have?
And you're just going to blow off Isa 46? It's a contrast? In what sense? He says, "Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done", and you understand that to mean, in whatever sense you wish, He is not declaring any end from the beginning and not declaring from ancient times things not yet done? This is good exegesis to you? To me, whether He is speaking of this situation or all situations, it is unavoidable that God is claiming for Himself knowledge of the future that you claim He cannot have.
So, you don't agree with my interpretation. And clearly I think yours makes no sense at all in light of the texts or the contexts. I think you are clearly distorting the plain meaning in order to accomplish a prior commitment to a God who does not know.
"If God truly can 'change His mind' and if He does make cosmic 'mistakes' that are either based upon misinformation or previously unknown facts, then our everlasting and blessed hope as Christians stands on shaky ground."
Shaky ground that is sinking sand. You are right shaky is too mild.
Josh if you disagree with Stan it would be helpful if you would tell us what this verse means based on a careful, objective analysis. Numbers 23:19 "God is not a man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind”?
God will never change his response to a certain set of circumstances. If people allow God to change their heart, God Changes his response. This is exactly what the Jer. text I posted states. If God relents the plans he had intended, he doesn't change his mind?
You know the psalm is a poem/song. David is saying (like the three verses prior) how amazed he is at God's ability to create him (knit him together). To say God foreknows how to create, doesn't mean God has exhaustive, deterministic foreknowledge.
I will just say that God knows the future (end and beginning) exhaustively, He just just knows them as possibilities and not actualities. He also knows that through all the possibilities, He wins.
I think you are clearly distorting the Jeremiah text because of a prior commitment to a God that determines.
Josh, you apparently understand "If you do this, I will do that" must necessarily require "I don't know what you will do ... let's just wait and see."
And to know every possible outcome exhaustively without knowing any actual outcome is to not, in the final analysis, to know anything actually.
As a side comment on this, I'm amazed these days how people applaud God's Sovereignty by surrendering Sovereignty and Omniscience without actually knowing anything and consider it good and even superior to the millennia of the understanding of the Church on these issues.
I'm curious, if God knows all the possibilities, but doesn't know which ones will happen, how does He know He wins in the end? I'm certain there must be a few possibilities that end Him losing. How can He be absolutely certain that those possibilities won't actually happen? Based on your stated theology, there is absolutely no reason to believe that God will win in the end, there is absolutely no way God can work out everything for God, since He is merely sitting back and watching. And it suddenly dawns on me, Open Theists are misnamed. They should be more accurately called Open Deists. Their god is a passive being who set it all in motion and is sitting on the sidelines hoping things turn out the way he would like. He may step in every now and then, like in the Old Testament, and Jesus, but for the most part, he's just watching a cosmic television show.
David,
It is like saying in a million games of chess between Bobby Fisher and an infant, the infant may win a couple. Obviously this is ridiculous, and in this analogy the infant has a better chance than satan. Your problem with the God that just "watches the cosmic TV show", is the same problem I have with the deterministic view of God reading the "book of history" that he authored. In the open view, God is active. He is in fact more active that the God of determinism. He is not active in a coercive way, but he works through the Holy Spirit.
More active (which actually makes no sense), but not more rational. A God who sovereignly determines not to be sovereign. An omniscient God who doesn't actually know anything (at least beyond this moment).
Josh, a question occurred to me. If Libertarian Free Will -- the ability to choose without determination of human nature or divine intervention -- actually exists, why is it that no human being (except, of course, the Son of God) has ever chosen not to sin ... or even to stop sinning?
The problem with your chess analogy is that Bobby Fisher is the one moving the pieces. In your theology, God is not playing the game but allowing the pieces to move of their own accord. Bobby Fisher would have no better chance against an infant than he would against an equally skilled opponent if they're not the ones making the moves. The fact that Bobby Fisher knows all the possible moves that can be made doesn't give him the ability to have any confidence in the outcome when he has no say in the movement of the pieces.
I'm unclear how the open deist god is more active. He has no means of causing the outcome he desires. He has no way of shifting events in the direction he wants. He is utterly dependent on sinful, selfish people and can only hope they do what he wants. In your view, what does the Spirit do that the Father will not, and how, in any sense of the word can He make anything turn out good when He can only woo?
David,
You seem to think the only way God can bring about His will is to either determine it ahead of time, or to direct people's actions in a coercive way. How much wisdom does that take? I can even comprehend that amount of wisdom. The fact that you can't comprehend a way for God to bring about His will without determining or coercing, makes it more likely in my estimate.
Stan,
The human nature is fallen. No one can turn from sin, apart from God. God is the only one that can change a person's nature. I guess I have a question for you as well. If the elect have received grace and a regenerated heart, why haven't they stopped sinning?
See, Josh, it's things like this (and not just from you -- just about from every dissenter I can find) that tells me you don't know what we're talking about. "...the only way God can bring about His will is to either determine it ahead of time, or to direct people's actions in a coercive way." No such thing. Not even close. You seem to believe that the only way it can work is either God is directly, constantly, completely controlling everything or He is not very much in control at all. That's not what I see in Scripture. That's not what I believe. That's not the claim about God's Sovereignty. And I only point this out for your benefit because I think you're arguing against something that those of us who do believe in God's Sovereignty do not believe in. (Note, however, that I can't see how God can know the end from the beginning and not know in advance. But that's about Omniscience, not Sovereignty.)
As for your comments to me, I'm really confused at this point. I mean, we both agree that Man is fallen and that is both your answer and mine for why we sin. But you claim to believe in Libertarian Free Will and the definition of Libertarian Free Will is the ability to choose apart from human nature (and divine control). But apparently you do believe that human nature determines human choices, so it would appear that you do not believe in Libertarian Free Will. so I'm lost.
Maybe we are actually in agreement, and this has just been a big misunderstanding :)
One question. Do you think Adam had libertarian free will?
I explained before I don't think Libertarian Free Will as it is defined exists. All beings operate according to their natures. No being (God included) can defy their own nature. As such the Libertarian Free Will concept is an illogical concept, requiring that in order for you to have that kind of Free Will, you must be able to defy your own nature and do, as it turns out, what you don't want (as we always want what our natures demand).
So, no, Adam didn't have Libertarian Free Will.
I've defined the term (multiple times) because 1) I don't think it can exist and 2) I don't think you and I are talking about the same thing. If I can pin down what you mean by the term, I can better understand where we differ.
We have never said God is coercive. He doesn't possess people to control their actions. But if someone is wanting to do something that God doesn't want to happen, He'll use means available to Him to prevent it. And in the other direction, He doesn't make us love Him, He only allows that part of us that can love Him be awakened in us. He replaces our heart of stone with a heart of flesh, nothing in that action is coercive. Just as Joseph's brothers meant their actions for evil, He meant then for good. He didn't coerce then to action, but He allowed them to proceed because it aligned with His plans. If He did not want them to do that, He would have prevented it, and all without controlling them. They continue to be responsible for their actions because they still made those choices.
I see LFW as turning several possibilities into one actuality by creatively bringing about a state of affairs that was not there before and was not necessitated by anything that was there before. There are definitely factors that play a part, but truly uncaused choices exist. I guess this is how I would define it.
You would include in your "possibilities" the ability to choose outside of your nature?
I believe in free will, defined as the ability to make choices without being coerced. (You know, "choices" = "will" and "uncoerced" = "free" -- free will.) How is that different than your LFW?
The only reason a person can choose outside of their nature, is because that power has been granted them by the Holy Spirit.
In your view, how can you be sure that nothings happens outside the will of God. What if a person is about to do something outside of His will, how does He prevent it without coercion?
In my view? Because that's what the Bible says (Eph 1:11).
Perhaps I can answer your question about how He prevents it by asking a question. In Genesis 20 Abraham is afraid he'll be killed for his wife, so he tells her to tell people she's his sister. The local king, Abimelech, takes her for his own. But God comes to Abimelech in a dream and warns him that he's a dead man. "I didn't do anything!" he tells God. And God says, "Then God said to him in the dream, "Yes, I know that in the integrity of your heart you have done this, and I also kept you from sinning against Me; therefore I did not let you touch her." (Gen 20:6). God claims intervention, preventing Abimelech from sinning. How did He do that? (I suppose if you can answer that, you can answer your own question.)
By the way, I would disagree that "a person can choose outside of their nature" ever. The Bible indicates that we are given a new nature (2 Cor 5:17; Ezek 36:26), in which case we would be choosing according to our nature ... which is not the original one.
How could we know how He would stop something outside of His will? That method is not explained to us, but we have several examples of it happening (see the plethora of passages Stream has sited). He could use the Spirit to convict someone, or cause a deer to jump in your way, or any number of possibilities. Have you never thanked God that you weren't harmed by something because something else prevented you from being there to be harmed? That would be God enforcing His will without coercion.
We all agree that God allows human choices without coercion. We also seem to agree that there is a mystery involved in how God brings about his will, without coercing free will entities.
Who gives us the new nature??? The Holy Spirit? I am guessing we agree on that as well.
The second definition (I know how you love definitions) of coerce is: to compel to an act or choice. How does God not compel those to the act of salvation by offering irresistible grace? It seems like God is literally making us an offer we can't refuse.
Of course, "Irresistible grace" isn't the topic here, but is it coercion to give a new nature?
(Frankly, trying to explain how anyone comes to Christ without "irresistible grace" in light of all the biblical texts on the condition of Natural Man is a complete mystery to me.)
Is it coercion for a person to accept a lifetime supply of "X" for nothing? Think of it as a river, it wants to flow, but if something is blocking it, its going to go a different direction because that's what it does. Once the easier direction opens, it changes flow. You wouldn't say the river was coerced, it was just doing what it would naturally do. We may be made of physical stuff but we are spiritual beings. Our spirits want to connect with something, look at the plethora of gods and idols and replacements for god we have made. But our dead spirit is unable to make that correct connection. When we are made alive again, that connection is immediately established because that is the natural desire of the spirit. It isn't coerced, but allowed to flow properly.
David, I was envisioning a blind person standing there and Jesus walks by and, without any conversation, heals him. "Hey!" he would protest, "That's coercion!" Right? Can't picture it myself.
The problem with the lifetime of product "x" analogy, is that you assume the person wants it.
According to the "flesh" we are broken and don't want to be saved. There is no dam blocking our flow, we are flowing south and God desires us to flow north.
My point is this:
If God chooses individuals for salvation, he must coerce (irresistable grace) them out of total depravity. Therefore your definition of free will doesn't follow.
Perhaps you'd like to take this debate up somewhere that it's the topic at hand rather than unrelated to whether or not God repents.
(Note: If God puts a new nature in a human being and that human being chooses, based on that new nature, to do something, it is not coercion. The human being chose based on his/her nature. You might argue that the new nature was coerced, but you cannot argue that the choice was.)
(Note also that continuing to argue for uncoerced choices that the Bible says Natural Man cannot make is problematic for you.)
It might be difficult to continue in a related topic because I'm pretty sure if it isn't on the front page and they don't have it tracked, it won't be able to continue.
Actually, your point of us going south and God wanting us to go north makes it even clearer. We want to go south, but with our new nature, the elevation shifts and now we want to go north. Still not coerced, and still following our nature.
Okay
(should we continue to debate in parentheses)
Another time, probably.
Post a Comment