Replies

There are some problems with the internal logic of this article:

To say that God is omniscient is to say that He possesses perfect knowledge and therefore has no need to learn.

Here, in the basic thesis, we have the verb "to learn." There are (at least) two ways in which this verb can be used:

1. to find out something which you did not know before.

2. to "be taught," or "to be instructed" by another person.

The author confounds these two meanings, leading to unsupportable leaps of logic.

But it is more: it is to say that God has never learned and cannot learn.

If we intend the verb "learn" to carry the meaning of #2, this is not an unreasonable proposition. We shall see that the author confounds this meaning with sense #1.

The Scriptures teach that God has never learned from anyone.

This claim (at least on its face) is actually demonstrated by the verses the author cites immediately after.

.........................

These rhetorical questions put by the prophet and the apostle Paul declare that God has never learned.

This statement can be accurate, ONLY if "never learned" carries (for this sentence) the meaning #2. To be an accurate description of the verses cited, the sentence would have to read:

"These rhetorical questions put by the prophet and the Apostle Paul declare that God has never been instructed or taught by any created being."

From there it is only a step to the conclusion that God cannot learn.

As above, to be an accurate description of the verses cited, AND to follow logically, this sentence must likewise be written:

"From there, it is only a step to the conclusion that God cannot be instructed or taught by any created being."

Could God at any time or in any manner receive into His mind knowledge that He did not possess and had not possessed from eternity, He would be imperfect and less than himself.

This proposition is one which can described as "might be true," or "might not be true." However, since it is an edifice which was built on a faulty foundation (as shown, above) one must remember that the author has given NO evidence from scripture for this conclusion.

To think of a God who must sit at the feet of a teacher, even though that teacher be an archangel or a seraph, is to think of someone other than the Most High God, maker of heaven and earth.

On its face, this statement looks like a perfectly unexceptionable statement of the character of God. It is problematic, though. Clearly, in this sentence the author is using sense #2 (of the verb "learn"): "... sit at the feet of a teacher..."

The problem arises from the fact that he has (in the above cited sentences) intended that "learn" be understood in sense #1. He also continues the use of sense #1, below. This, even though the verses he has cited have the clear meaning of sense #2.

Thus, the best face which can be put upon this sentence is that it demonstrates faulty logic.

That God is omniscient is not only taught in the Scriptures, it must be inferred also from all else that is taught concerning Him. God perfectly knows Himself and, being the source and author of all things, it follows that He knows all that can be known.

So far, so good...

And this He knows instantly and with a fullness of perfection that includes every possible item of knowledge concerning everything that exists or

OK...

could have existed

Now, this is an interesting concept.

anywhere in the universe at any time in the past

Agreed...

or that may exist in the centuries or ages yet unborn.

Here, we arrive at the issue. This is another concept which "might be true," or "might NOT be true." Clearly, the article has not even demonstrated its likelihood, much less proved its truth. That must be done by finding scripture which actually so states.

Here are three verses which appear or seem to show that the future is fixed, and that God always knows what will happen, in the (our temporal) future, and that God does not change His mind:

Numbers 23:19
God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he
should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and
shall he not make it good?

Ezekiel 24:14
I the LORD have spoken it: it shall come to pass, and I will do it; I will not
go back, neither will I spare, neither will I repent; according to thy ways,
and according to thy doings, shall they judge thee, saith the Lord GOD.

Psalm 110:4
The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever
after the order of Melchizedek.

If these verses were the ONLY verses which addressed the subject, then maybe the subject could be settled. But, they are not. Consider, if you will, the following passages:

(All from KJV)

Genesis 6:6
And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it
grieved him at his heart.
7
And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face
of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of
the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

These verses seem or appear to indicate that the earth didn't turn out the way God had wanted it to.

Exodus 32:14
And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

Deuteronomy 32:36
For the LORD shall judge his people, and repent himself for his servants,
when he seeth that their power is gone, and there is none shut up, or left.

Judges 2:18
And when the LORD raised them up judges, then the LORD was with the
judge, and delivered them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of
the judge: for it repented the LORD because of their groanings by reason of
them that oppressed them and vexed them.

These verses seem or appear to indicate that God changed his mind, about punishing his people.

1 Samuel 15:11
It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back
from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And it
grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the LORD all night.

1 Samuel 15:35
And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death:
nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul: and the LORD repented that he
had made Saul king over Israel.

These verses seem or appear to indicate that the crowning of Saul didn't turn out the way God had wanted it to.

2 Samuel 24:16
And when the angel stretched out his hand upon Jerusalem to destroy it,
the LORD repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed
the people, It is enough: stay now thine hand. And the angel of the LORD
was by the threshingplace of Araunah the Jebusite.

1 Chronicles 21:15
And God sent an angel unto Jerusalem to destroy it: and as he was
destroying, the LORD beheld, and he repented him of the evil, and said to
the angel that destroyed, It is enough, stay now thine hand. And the angel
of the LORD stood by the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite.

These verses seem or appear to indicate that God changed his mind, about punishing his people.

Psalm 90:13
Return, O LORD, how long? and let it repent thee concerning thy
servants.

Psalm 135:14
For the LORD will judge his people, and he will repent himself concerning
his servants.

These verses seem or appear to indicate that God may be asked to change His mind.

Jeremiah 15:6
Thou hast forsaken me, saith the LORD, thou art gone backward:
therefore will I stretch out my hand against thee, and destroy thee; I am
weary with repenting.

This verse seems or appears to be saying that God can become tired of changing his mind!

Jeremiah 26:13
Therefore now amend your ways and your doings, and obey the voice of the
LORD your God; and the LORD will repent him of the evil that he hath
pronounced against you.

Jeremiah 26:19
Did Hezekiah king of Judah and all Judah put him at all to death? did he
not fear the LORD, and besought the LORD, and the LORD repented him
of the evil which he had pronounced against them? Thus might we procure
great evil against our souls.

Joel 2:13
And rend your heart, and not your garments, and turn unto the LORD
your God: for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great
kindness, and repenteth him of the evil.
14
Who knoweth if he will return and repent, and leave a blessing behind
him; even a meat offering and a drink offering unto the LORD your God?

The future actions of humans may influence the mind of God.

Amos 7:3
The LORD repented for this: It shall not be, saith the LORD.

Amos 7:6
The LORD repented for this: This also shall not be, saith the Lord GOD.

These verses seem or appear to indicate that God uttered a couple of "Thus saith the LORD," and then changed His mind, and uttered a different "Thus saith the Lord."

Jonah 3:9
Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce
anger, that we perish not?

Jonah 3:10
And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God
repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he
did it not.

Jonah 4:2
And he prayed unto the LORD, and said, I pray thee, O LORD, was not
this my saying, when I was yet in my country? Therefore I fled before unto
Tarshish: for I knew that thou art a gracious God, and merciful, slow to
anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of the evil.

The future actions of humans may influence the mind of God.

These verses are provided for information, only, as a way to demonstrate that differing points of view can both be Biblically reasonable. They are not to be considered "proof texts," and will not be defended as such.

Interesting post. I’m not a theologian but I do like logic problems so let me see if I can figure this out.

This certainly does appear to be a conflict in the scriptures. We first have to agree that the scripture are not in error but inspired by God. Once we agree to that then we must agree that both must be true.

For narrowing down this from the many verses you cited that goes back and forth let’s take two scriptures chosen at random. (Which verses is used does not affect the logic.)

1) Numbers 23:19 “God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?”

2) 1 Samuel 15:11 It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the LORD all night. ”

Now, we have already agreed that scriptures are without error so we know that both of these verses are correct. We also know that God cannot be both-one who does not repent and one who does. That would make no sense. Since they cannot conflict, one verse must be interpreted based on the other verse. I think we would also agree these verses tell us something of the nature of God.

Scenario 1 – God Does Not Repent (Does Not Change His Mind)

If we say the first statement is true, that God does not repent (or change His mind), then how do we interpret the second verse? We know God made Saul king and then said He “repenteth” of making Saul king. Under this scenario we know God did not “change his mind” nor are the scriptures in error.

Therefore, in order to interpret verse 2 (Saul) we must say God already “knew” Saul would turn out to not follow His commands. If that is the case the statement under this scenario the words, “It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king” must be interpreted in some other fashion in order to be true to the inerrant Word of God. Under this scenario without arguing the verse itself, one must conclude this statement must refer to some other characteristic of God. We would have to search the scriptures (within the context of the scriptures to understand what this characteristic of God is but we know (under this scenario) it is not God changing His mind. Plus, because this is a characteristic of God then it may change from passage to passage so it may take on other meanings.

Scenario 2 – God Does Repent (Change His Mind)

Let’s assume God does change His mind and the verse with Saul is correct. Then the first verse “God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent…” needs to be interpreted. In this case it says that God doesn’t repent (change His mind). He says what He does NOT do.

Under this scenario it is no longer a characteristic of God but an action. (God does NOT do [something]). In this case He doesn’t lie, He doesn’t repent, etc. would be all actions. We know with Saul, God repented of his actions. So what does God NOT do? There becomes no way to interpret this (or other) verses except for what it says, “repent”.

If this is true that God does not repent then this scenario cannot be true because it says with Saul that God did repent. His actions clearly demonstrated a conflict in the scriptures. Thus the scriptures would be false and we know that cannot be the case. You cannot solve the riddle of this scenario.

My understanding through all of this is that Scenario 1 (God cannot change His mind) looks at it as a characteristic. Scenario 2 (God can change His mind) looks at it as an action which I don’t think is correct. The problem with Scenario 2 as I see it is it states what God is NOT and relies upon actions rather than characteristics.

Please DON’T FLAME me. I welcome all logical discord for this interesting problem. It would be helpful to provide solutions than issues. Thanks.

If God is not immutable then your salvation is at risk, as is every promise He has ever made to men .

Everything is open to the fickle change of a mutable god.
He could decide to be just to us and throw us all in hell where we belong ,.We can have no confidence in His word.

When God gives an ultimation that something will happen because of a behavior or a rebellious act , He gives it knowing the outcome of that ultimation. It is given not to change Him..but to change the one it was proclaimed to .

"God is not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that We should repent : hath He said, and shall He not do it ? or, hath He spoken, and shall He not make it good?" (Numb. 23:19). "The Strength of Israel will not lie, nor repent; for He is not a man, that He should repent (1 Sam. 15:29). " He is in one mind, and who can turn Him ? '' (Job 23:13). "I, the Lord, have spoken it, it shall come to pass, and I will do it; I will not go back, neither will I spare, neither will I repent " (Ezek. 24:14). "The gifts and calling of God are without repentance " (Rom. 11:29). "He abideth faithful, and cannot deny Himself " (2 Tim. 2:13).

By the purpose or decree of God, we mean His determinate counsel, whereby He did from all eternity preordain whatever He should do, or would permit to be done, in time. In particular, it signifies His everlasting appointment of some men to life, and of others to death, which appointment flows entirely from His own free and sovereign will. ''The children not yet being born, neither having done any good or evil (that the purpose of God, according to election, might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth), it was said, the elder shall serve the younger: as it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated " (Rom. ix. 11).

In the case of Nineveh , the message was sent as a rebuke to rebellious Israel and the first time that a gentile nation had a prophet come to a gentile nation.
A prophecy that the gentile nations would hear the gospel .

It showed how relentless God is in conforming men to His will and purpose.See how He pursued Jonah .

It was a prophecy of the resurrection as taught by Jesus .

Did a change occur YES the change was in Nineveh not God.
For He had ordained the entire event as a testimony and prophecy

On Hezekiah

Look at the prayer of the King

2Ki 20:3**
I beseech thee, O LORD, remember now how I have walked before thee in truth and with a perfect heart, and have done [that which is] good in thy sight. And Hezekiah wept sore.

He did not beg to be spared at all.He begged to be remembered by God .

Perhaps we could liken this prayer to the prayer of the thief.."remember me when you come into your kingdom". He was frightened to die as are most men, He had no heir (thus the admonition to put his house in order.)

If you look through the OT you see that prophets were to warn, and to get people to change their ways. This illness brought the king to prayer, as God knew it would .

Think of the result of His prayer . He asked for a sign , God gave him a miraculous sign that was seen by the Babylonians .

The sun cast would go backwards instead of forwards . The son of the King of Babylon had heard of Hezekiah's illness and healing, and the "scientists" of Babylon observed the sun changing directions , so Babylon sent messengers with a gift and instructions to find out what happened to Hezekiah's God.
Hezekiah was feeling so good about his recovery and the interest of the Babylonians that he decided to show them all the wealth of his country.

Was that sign preordained?

During these extra 15 years the seeds for the ultimate destruction of Judah are planted and Hezekiah's evil successor is born. This led to a plundering of Judah and their captivity .

Now look at the lineage of Jesus.

Remember that Hezekiah had NO Heirs , NO son . If he had died at the time of the prophecy he would have ended the line of David from which the savior came.

See the prophecy

Luk 1:32**
He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

**
*
Luk 1:33**
And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

Without those 15 years (and the son born during that time ) there would have been no Kingdom without end

Mat 1:10**
Hezekiah was the father of Manasseh, Manasseh the father of Amon, and Amon the father of Josiah.

Mat 1:11**
Josiah became the father of Jeconiah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon

So was this an ordained work of Mercy and grace?

I think it clearly was as it was a part of the fulfillment of the prophecies an not coincidental or the act of a fickle God that has no set plan .

Consider the natural consequences of the god of open theology .

There can never be an ultimate truth . All things and event are open to revision . God is as changeable as man , so like man He could never be trusted to be faithful to anything in scripture . Even your salvation could be taken , should God change His mind about saving any men ..of withdrawing His mercy from us.

One of the natures of God is His immutability.That is why we can always trust His word .Open theology robs that from Him and instead it make Him some what immutable .

How often in scripture is God called the ROCK of our salvation ? He is not a pebble .

It is God that places prayer in our mouth. He knows the words before we say them . We do not pray to change God. We pray to change ourself . God will only grant that which is within His will when we pray .

Consider that the God presented by Boyd is a uninvolved God that can not be trusted.

That is not the God presented in the Bible
__________________