Download a PDF of the excerpt - Crossway
Download a PDF of the excerpt - Crossway Download a PDF of the excerpt - Crossway
Does God Ever Change His Mind? 63mind,” but in literal fact he does not. Open theists often contendthat we adopt this approach to the problem because of an extrabiblicalpresupposition concerning the nature of God derived fromthe Greek ideal of perfection. This alien, philosophical criterion isimposed on Scripture rather than allowing God’s Word to shape ourconcept of God himself.However, contrary to this assertion, most evangelicals appealto anthropopathism because of what they believe Scripture explicitlyteaches concerning the omniscience and immutability of God.It is the “analogy of faith,” Scripture’s harmonious interpretation ofitself, not Greek philosophical presuppositions, that governs theirtreatment of such problem texts. Passages such as Numbers 23:19and the others cited earlier are unequivocal: God is not a man.Therefore, he does not lie. He does not change his mind the waypeople do. He does not promise and then fail to fulfill. Those whoappeal to anthropopathism insist that we are justified in interpretingthe unclear in the light of the clear and utilizing a figure ofspeech generally acknowledged as entirely legitimate.Second, and even more importantly, we must recognize thedifference between unconditional divine decrees and conditionaldivine announcements (or warnings). 6 The former will occur irrespectiveof other factors. The latter may occur dependent on theresponse of the person or persons to whom they apply. Occasionallysomething explicit in the context will indicate which of the twois in view. Most often, however, statements of divine intent areambiguous. That is to say, one must determine from other datawhether the declaration or determination of God is unconditionalor conditional. For example, what we find in the case of Jonah andthe Ninevites is most likely not an unqualified and unconditionaldeclaration of purpose. Consider carefully the nature of this passagefrom Jeremiah (18:5–12):Then the word of the Lord came to me: O house of Israel, can I notdo with you as this potter has done? declares the Lord. Behold,6Examples of an unconditional decree would be Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:29; Ps. 110:4; Jer. 4:28; Ezek.24:14; Zech. 8:14. Examples of conditional announcements or warnings would be Ex. 32:12, 14; Jer.15:6; 18:8, 10; 26:3, 13, 19; Joel 2:13–14; Amos 7:3, 6; Jonah 3:9–10; 4:2.
64 Tough Topicslike the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in my hand, O houseof Israel. If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom,that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, and ifthat nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil,I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it. And if atany time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I willbuild and plant it, and if it does evil in my sight, not listening tomy voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to doto it. Now, therefore, say to the men of Judah and the inhabitantsof Jerusalem: “Thus says the Lord, Behold, I am shaping disasteragainst you and devising a plan against you. Return, every onefrom his evil way, and amend your ways and your deeds.”But they say, “That is in vain! We will follow our own plans, andwill every one act according to the stubbornness of his evil heart.”That God declared his intention to destroy Nineveh, only towithhold his hand when they repented, is thus no threat to the doctrineof immutability. On the contrary, had God destroyed Ninevehnotwithstanding its repentance, he would have shown himself mutable.William Shedd explains:If God had treated the Ninevites after their repentance, as hehad threatened to treat them before their repentance, this wouldhave proved him to be mutable. It would have showed him to beat one time displeased with impenitence, and at another withpenitence. Charnock . . . remarks that “the unchangeableness ofGod, when considered in relation to the exercise of his attributesin the government of the world, consists not in always acting inthe same manner, however cases and circumstances may alter;but in always doing what is right, and in adapting his treatmentof his intelligent creatures to the variation of their actions andcharacters. When the devils, now fallen, stood as glorious angels,they were the objects of God’s love, necessarily; when they fell,they were the objects of God’s hatred, because impure. The samereason which made him love them while they were pure, madehim hate them when they were criminal.” It is one thing for Godto will a change in created things external to himself and anotherthing for him to change in his own nature and character. 77William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, vol. 1 (1889; repr., Minneapolis: Klock & Klock, 1979),352–53 (emphasis mine).
- Page 1 and 2: Biblical Answers to 25 Challenging
- Page 3 and 4: “Some questions about God and the
- Page 5 and 6: ContentsPreface111 Is the Bible Ine
- Page 7 and 8: PrefaceLucy and Linus are gazing ou
- Page 9: Preface 13our minds to explore ever
- Page 12 and 13: Does God Ever Change His Mind? 55th
- Page 14 and 15: Does God Ever Change His Mind? 57Th
- Page 16 and 17: Does God Ever Change His Mind? 59Th
- Page 18 and 19: Does God Ever Change His Mind? 61be
- Page 22 and 23: Does God Ever Change His Mind? 65Al
- Page 24 and 25: 4Could JesusHave Sinned?I “know
- Page 26 and 27: Could Jesus Have Sinned? 69“not a
- Page 28 and 29: Could Jesus Have Sinned? 71Thus the
- Page 30 and 31: Resurgence Literature (Re:Lit) is a
- Page 32: Will there be sex in heaven?Are mir
Does God Ever Change His Mind? 63mind,” but in literal fact he does not. Open <strong>the</strong>ists <strong>of</strong>ten contendthat we adopt this approach to <strong>the</strong> problem because <strong>of</strong> an extrabiblicalpresupposition concerning <strong>the</strong> nature <strong>of</strong> God derived from<strong>the</strong> Greek ideal <strong>of</strong> perfection. This alien, philosophical criterion isimposed on Scripture ra<strong>the</strong>r than allowing God’s Word to shape ourconcept <strong>of</strong> God himself.However, contrary to this assertion, most evangelicals appealto anthropopathism because <strong>of</strong> what <strong>the</strong>y believe Scripture explicitlyteaches concerning <strong>the</strong> omniscience and immutability <strong>of</strong> God.It is <strong>the</strong> “analogy <strong>of</strong> faith,” Scripture’s harmonious interpretation <strong>of</strong>itself, not Greek philosophical presuppositions, that governs <strong>the</strong>irtreatment <strong>of</strong> such problem texts. Passages such as Numbers 23:19and <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs cited earlier are unequivocal: God is not a man.Therefore, he does not lie. He does not change his mind <strong>the</strong> waypeople do. He does not promise and <strong>the</strong>n fail to fulfill. Those whoappeal to anthropopathism insist that we are justified in interpreting<strong>the</strong> unclear in <strong>the</strong> light <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> clear and utilizing a figure <strong>of</strong>speech generally acknowledged as entirely legitimate.Second, and even more importantly, we must recognize <strong>the</strong>difference between unconditional divine decrees and conditionaldivine announcements (or warnings). 6 The former will occur irrespective<strong>of</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r factors. The latter may occur dependent on <strong>the</strong>response <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> person or persons to whom <strong>the</strong>y apply. Occasionallysomething explicit in <strong>the</strong> context will indicate which <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> twois in view. Most <strong>of</strong>ten, however, statements <strong>of</strong> divine intent areambiguous. That is to say, one must determine from o<strong>the</strong>r datawhe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> declaration or determination <strong>of</strong> God is unconditionalor conditional. For example, what we find in <strong>the</strong> case <strong>of</strong> Jonah and<strong>the</strong> Ninevites is most likely not an unqualified and unconditionaldeclaration <strong>of</strong> purpose. Consider carefully <strong>the</strong> nature <strong>of</strong> this passagefrom Jeremiah (18:5–12):Then <strong>the</strong> word <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Lord came to me: O house <strong>of</strong> Israel, can I notdo with you as this potter has done? declares <strong>the</strong> Lord. Behold,6Examples <strong>of</strong> an unconditional decree would be Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:29; Ps. 110:4; Jer. 4:28; Ezek.24:14; Zech. 8:14. Examples <strong>of</strong> conditional announcements or warnings would be Ex. 32:12, 14; Jer.15:6; 18:8, 10; 26:3, 13, 19; Joel 2:13–14; Amos 7:3, 6; Jonah 3:9–10; 4:2.
Change language