Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Is God subject to change? | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 102189 | ||
Greetings John! A couple of small, quick corrections before I address Packer's quote. First of all, I never used the word 'contingency' plan. I used the word 'conditional'. There is a major difference. Secondly, I never denied God's foreknowledge. Having said that, I still don't agree with Packer on this one. For a very simply reason, it forces us to pick and choose which statements are true and which one's aren't. The same word is used in both Num. 23:19 and Ex. 32:14. Why does it 'really' mean what it says in Num. 23:19, but doesn't 'really' mean what it says in Ex. 32:14? There is a much easier answer than to deny that God actually meant what He said. I ran a word search. Every time God is said 'not to repent', the phrase is used in comination with the word 'lie'. Note: There are verses where He says that He 'will not repent' in a given instance. The verses used with lie are: Num. 23:19 and 1 Sam. 15:29. Both of these passages are in context where God is stating that He can be trusted to keep a promise. But, there are about 10 verses where God is said to have 'repented'. So, why are the two true, but the ten not? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | Is God subject to change? | Bible general Archive 2 | EdB | 102205 | ||
Tim John gave this quote (ran through my spell checker :-) ) "It is true that there is a group of texts... which speak of God as repenting. The reference in each case is to a reversal of God's treatment of a particular people, consequent on their reaction to that treatment. But there is no suggestion that this reaction was not foreseen, or that it took God by surprise and was not provided for in His eternal plan. No change in His eternal purpose is implied when He begins to deal with a person in a new way." I think you took exception to it, but I'm not clear as why. As I read it, it seems to imply God does react to what people do but that neither surprises God nor effects the overall plan He has in place. Is there something I'm missing? EdB |
||||||
3 | Is God subject to change? | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 102241 | ||
Greetings EdB! I would have to see the entire context of the quote, but I took it as simply another way of saying that God didn't really change His treatment of the people. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
4 | Is God subject to change? | Bible general Archive 2 | EdB | 102261 | ||
Tim I focused on, "The reference in each case is to a reversal of God's treatment of a particular people, consequent on their reaction to that treatment." To me the author was admitting that God does react to how we act. EdB |
||||||