Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Such thing as a choice? | Eccl 6:10 | Morant61 | 153116 | ||
Greetings WOS! As I told Doc my friend, I find no fault with God. That is not the point I am trying to make. I find fault with a theological interpretation that says that God cannot change His mind when there are many Scriptures that says He does. In fact, Jer. 18:7-10 is an excellent example of this exact point. God's plan for nations is effected by their actions. I am simply not comfortable with any interpretative scheme that requires us to 'harmonize' away clear statements of Scripture yet accept 'implied' statements as fact. Something just doesn't seem right there! ;-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | Such thing as a choice? | Eccl 6:10 | Wild Olive Shoot | 153174 | ||
Tim, If you would, read the following commentary concerning Jonah 3:9,10. I would like to get your views on it. Not trying to fan the flames of this discussion, I just see some valid points in the commentary that, for me anyhow, shed light on your statements. 9. Who can tell--(Compare Joe 2:14 ). Their acting on a vague possibility of God's mercy, without any special ground of encouragement, is the more remarkable instance of faith, as they had to break through long-rooted prejudices in giving up idols to seek Jehovah at all. The only ground which their ready faith rested on, was the fact of God sending one to warn them, instead of destroying them at once; this suggested the thought of a possibility of pardon. Hence they are cited by Christ as about to condemn in the judgment those who, with much greater light and privileges, yet repent not ( Mat 12:41 ). 10. God repented of the evil--When the message was sent to them, they were so ripe for judgment that a purpose of destruction to take effect in forty days was the only word God's righteous abhorrence of sin admitted of as to them. But when they repented, the position in which they stood towards God's righteousness was altered. So God's mode of dealing with them must alter accordingly, if God is not to be inconsistent with His own immutable character of dealing with men according to their works and state of heart, taking vengeance at last on the hardened impenitent, and delighting to show mercy on the penitent. Compare Abraham's reasoning, Gen 18:25 Eze 18:21-25 Jer 18:7-10 . What was really a change in them and in God's corresponding dealings is, in condescension to human conceptions, represented as a change in God (compare Exd 32:14 ), who, in His essential righteousness and mercy, changeth not ( Num 23:19 1Sa 15:29 Mal 3:6 Jam 1:17 ). The reason why the announcement of destruction was made absolute, and not dependent on Nineveh's continued impenitence, was that this form was the only one calculated to rouse them; and at the same time it was a truthful representation of God's purpose towards Nineveh under its existing state, and of Nineveh's due. When that state ceased, a new relation of Nineveh to God, not contemplated in the message, came in, and room was made for the word to take effect, "the curse causeless shall not come" [FAIRBAIRN]. Prophecy is not merely for the sake of proving God's omniscience by the verification of predictions of the future, but is mainly designed to vindicate God's justice and mercy in dealing with the impenitent and penitent respectively ( Rom 11:22 ). The Bible ever assigns the first place to the eternal principles of righteousness, rooted in the character of God, subordinating to them all divine arrangements. God's sparing Nineveh, when in the jaws of destruction, on the first dawn of repentance encourages the timid penitent, and shows beforehand that Israel's doom, soon after accomplished, is to be ascribed, not to unwillingness to forgive on God's part, but to their own obstinate impenitence. Jamieson, Robert; A.R. Fausset; and David Brown. "The Book of Jonah." Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible. Blue Letter Bible. 19 Feb 2000. 27 Jun 2005. http://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/jfb/Jon/Jon003.html. From my lay perspective, the book of Jonah, taken as a whole, puts forth the sovereignty of God in such a way that it cannot be overlooked. As Nineveh deserved judgment and Jonah was at first reluctant, God first broke the will of Jonah and then used him, or the message through him, to break the will of Nineveh, all to the purpose of His eternal plan. Indicative in the last chapter, God is in full control and will carry out His will in order to carry out His eternally perfect plan in light of all human wisdom and emotions. As the will of Jonah was bent, so was the will of Nineveh and God acted in accordance with His known nature. They came to faith and repented and God showed His mercy. That’s no different than what we face today. Our faith is established in Christ or we are old that we will face judgment. God is not changing in that premise, we are. His plan is unchangeable and will be carried out regardless of whether or not we believe, we are told in advance of what we will face one way or the other. I for one am fearful if our all-powerful God’s plan can change based on the whims of man. If that be true, where is our security found in the rest of God’s Word, in our salvation? Don’t get me wrong Brother Tim, I see your point as well. However, I have a hard time understanding why an all-knowing God would need to change His mind. WOS |
||||||
3 | Such thing as a choice? | Eccl 6:10 | Morant61 | 153178 | ||
Greetings WOS! Now this was the kind of interaction I was hoping for my friend! :-) If you read my posts on this topic so far, I have not presented a theory, I have simply posted verses that state that God repented and asked questions about them. I don't have all the answers on this issue, but I haven't been satisfied with the answers I have been reading in the commentaries about this point. So, allow me to interact with your points my friend! 1) The comments on verse 9 are excellent. Although no condition was proclaimed, I can see from the text and the fact that Jonah was sent at all that the Ninevites could respond with hope of a pardon. 2) The commments on v. 10 are the best I have read yet on this issue. Allow me to try to lay out my concerns over this issue and then try to explore some possible solutions. Concerns: 1) We have a series of Scriptures that apparently state opposite things. We have two verses that say 'God is not a man that He should repent' and multiple verses (using the same exact word) that say God does repent. Obviously, both statements cannot be true in the same way at the same time. 2) The usual attempt to 'harmonize' these verses is to say that the verses that state that God did repent are anthropomorphisms, while the others are actual descriptions of God. Who is to say that the other set of verses are not snthropomorphisms instead? 3) Accepting that God is omniscient, how could His warning to Ninevah ever be accepted as true. Calvinist or Arminian, God knew that He would not destroy Ninevah in 40 days. I certainly don't think that I have all the answers, but I think that there is a better way to harmonize these verses. Relationships do not occur timelessly. Yes, God knew that He would not destroy Ninevah and that Ninevah would repent. But, repentance takes place in 'time'. The commentary you quote mentions the change in relationship, but still kind of 'throws' away Jonah 3:10. Could it be that Jonah describes the relationship between God and Ninevah as it actually occurs within time - i.e. that God must actually operate within time when He relates to us. We know from the incarnation that God can subject Himself to space and time if He so chooses, though He is clearly not bound by them. Within time, things happen in a logical order. 1) God announced His intention to destroy Ninevah. 2) Ninevah repented and entered into a different status in their relationship with God. 3) Therefore, God (within the confines of time) repented of His course of action. These are just some thoughts my friend! I don't have the answer, but I know that I am not convinced by the 'anthropomorphism' approach either. It 'smells' too much of changing the text to fit a doctrine. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||