I’m not
normally an emotional person, but it was a very emotional day for me when I got
saved. My theology was influenced so much by the guy who discipled me because I
respected him even before I got saved. As I began to ask questions about the
word of God, the answers he showed me were presented from a strong Calvinistic
basis. The pastor of the church was an Arminian, theologically, and in a way my
mentor undermined the pastor’s credibility in my eyes. My mentor’s explanations
seemed reasonable to me since he did back them up with a lot of Scripture.
Because of this, I became a strong advocate of Calvinism. Because of his
influence, it was not long before I was wrestling with the doctrines of limited
atonement and universal reconciliation. According to 1 Tim 2:4, God wills all
men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. And Eph 1:11 says,
He works all things according to the counsel of His will.
The consistent Calvinist
believes that God wills only the elect to be saved. My wife’s uncle was a
Universal Reconciliationist. The Universal Reconciliationists believe that 1
Tim 2:4 shows that God will save all. Which one was right. It seemed that it
had to be one or the other. When I moved to California in 1957, my pastor,
there, presented a new idea to me called corporate election and predestination.
He explained to me that the body of Christ as a group was elected, not the
individuals. In other words, when a person believed in Christ and was baptized
by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ, that was when he would become
elect—chosen to be holy and blameless because he was a member of the body of
Christ. That pastor’s explanation caused the first breach in my Calvinistic
armor.
However, the
idea this corporate election and predestination had one major flaw which the
Scriptures did not seem to support. God’s foreknowledge was the basis of His
election and predestination. Since my pastor and I believed God knew everything
as though it were in the present, and His election and predestination were
based on His foreknowledge, and since He knew everyone who was foreknown or
predestined, then God’s predestination had to be individual just as His
knowledge was.
By this time of
my life, that Calvinistic theology influenced my attitudes on prayer. I
reasoned, If God knew everything, and He did. And if God predestinated
everything, and He did that too. Then everything that I prayed was foreknown
and predestined. If I didn’t pray, that was predestined also. My reasoning
under this Calvinistic influence caused me to have a lousy prayer life. The
only reason I prayed, I reasoned, was because God commanded it in His word.
However, there was no zest in my prayer life. I sensed this was wrong but
didn’t know what to do about it. I realized that Christ was zealous in prayer,
and Paul was zealous in prayer. Therefore, I suspected, something was wrong
with my prayer life.
During this
troublesome period of my life, my wife and I visited her parents in Illinois.
Her father had a large library of theological books. I was browsing through his
books and found one titled, How Can God
Answer Prayer?1 That was the question I really wanted answered. He had four
chapters based on four different suppositions. The two chapters that struck my
interest the most were, “Why Pray if the Benevolent God Knows What We Need?”
and “Why Pray if Everything Is Predetermined by God?” I began reading it
immediately. This book changed my life. The one which disrupted my preconceived
ideas dealt with and undermined the immutability of God with Scripture I had
never considered. I found that there was a vast amount of Scripture which
showed that God changed His mind – even repented. Since that time, I have
studied this issue for thousands of hours. What I want to talk about this
evening is the result of my studies.
First we must
see the origin of my preconceived ideas. The biggest assumption I had been
indoctrinated with was God’s immutability. Now, immutability means unchanging.
This is the basis for most of the tenets of Calvinistic doctrine. But, where
did that idea of immutability come from? The answer, in the sense of influence,
is Plato. Plato (427-347 BC), the great philosopher of Athens, has been a major
influence on philosophical thought for about 2,400 years. He greatly influenced
a man named Plotinus. Plotinus, in turn, had a great influence on a man named
Augustine.
Augustine, the
Bishop of Hippo (354-430), had been thoroughly educated in philosophy. By Augustine’s
time, Plato’s thought had permeated almost every school of philosophy. It seems
to me that most philosophers, then and now, take the approach that truth can
only be attained by human reason. This is called rationalism. Even evangelical
scholars who I admire seem to be more influenced by philosophical thought than
God’s word when it comes to God’s character. Now, since Augustine was steeped
in this rationalistic thought, it influenced his ideas about God. He
incorporated Plato’s idea of immutability into his theology after his
conversion. Through Augustine, Plato has had a tremendous influence on
Christian theological thought for about 1,600 years. It has been the cause of
legalism and a lack of evangelism in some churches.
Plato honored
his mentor, Socrates, in his writings by making him the main character of his
dialogues. It seems that Plato related the philosophy and thought of Socrates.
Plato developed the thoughts of Heravclitus,
Xenophanes, and Parmenides into his thesis of the immutability of God. We can
understand Plato’s theoretical idea of the immutability of God by reading his
explanation. Here’s what he wrote in the Republic
in, “A dialogue between Socrates and Adeimantus.”
Is it not true that
to be altered and moved by something else happens least to things that are in
the best condition . . . that those which are well made and in good condition
are least liable to be changed by time and other influences. . . . It is
universally true then, that that which is in the best state by nature or art or
both admits least alteration by something else. . . . But God, surely and
everything that belongs to God is in every way in the best possible state. . .
. does he change himself for the better . . . or for the worse and to something
uglier than himself? . . for the worse if he is changed . . . the gods
themselves are incapable of change. . . . Then God is altogether simple and
true in deed and word, and neither changes himself nor deceives others.2
This rationalistic view of God was adopted by Augustine.
Augustine’s
theology influenced the Reformation through an Augustinian monk, Martin Luther. Augustine and Luther had a great
influence on John Calvin. And great amounts of Calvin’s theology permeate most
of the evangelical theologies that have been developed since the reformation.
But, God addressed this rationalism that was first popularized by Plato, in 1
Corinthians 1:19-21:
For it is
written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and bring to nothing the
understanding of the prudent.” Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is
the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God,
it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those
who believe.
Because of this
Greek philosophical influence, Augustine thought the idea of a mutable God was
an absurdity. Augustine was able to accept the Catholic faith only after
Ambrose (340-397), Bishop of Milan, allegorized the Old Testament Scriptures
which revealed a mutable God. Ambrose spiritualized the offending Scripture
passages of the Old Testament in his sermons. When Augustine heard these
sermons where Ambrose explained the absurdities which contradicted Plato’s
philosophy, he was able to accept the Christian God and receive Christ as His
Savior. He wrote,
For those
absurdities which in those Scriptures were wont to offend me, after I had heard
divers of them expounded properly, I referred now to the depth of the mystery:
yea and the authority of that Book appeared so much the more venerable, and so
much more worthy of our religious credit.3
Certain
absurdities had hindered Augustine from believing in the Word of God. Augustine
believed that God was immutable. To him it was absurd to believe in a God who
could change his mind. How did Augustine know that this was absurd? The force
of his own reasoning concluded that it was absurd. But his reasoning was
permeated by Platonic rationalistic philosophy. After hearing Ambrose,
Augustine was able to make the rationalistic judgment that the Bible was a
rational authority. Augustine only turned to the Scriptures after the
absurdities were “expounded properly.”
Although
Augustine later developed a higher regard for Scripture, first he used
non-Scriptural rationalistic thinking to form his ideas about God’s attributes.
Then, he attempted to find support for his ideas in the Scriptures. His primary
presupposition was the immutability of God. The doctrine of immutability
influenced his doctrines of predestination, foreknowledge, and God being
outside of time. Augustine, subsequently, had great influence on Calvin. This
influence of Augustine over Calvin is attested by many writers. For example,
Warfield, a Calvinist, wrote,
“The system of doctrine taught by Calvin is just the
Augustinianism common to the whole body of the Reformers – for the Reformation
was, as from the spiritual point of view a great revival of Augustinianism.”4
Neoplatonism
and Manichaeism5 had a great influence on
Augustine. These philosophies presented the idea that God could not be mutable,
change in any way, and retain his perfection. Augustine accepted this
philosophical thought as true and attempted to prove this doctrine using
Scripture. How could God change his will or character from one time to the next
in order to adjust to a changeable mankind? Augustine explained the
“ridiculous” Old Testament doctrines in a treatise titled, On the Morals of the Catholic Church:
We do not
worship a God who repents, or is envious, or needy, or cruel, or who
takes pleasure in the blood of men or beasts, or is pleased with guilt or
crime, or whose possession of the earth is limited to a little corner of it.
These and such like are the silly notions . . . the fancies of old women or of
children . . . and in those by whom these passages are literally understood. . .
. And should any one suppose that anything in God’s substance or nature can
suffer change or conversion, he will be held guilty of wild profanity.6
Augustine
agreed with the Manichaeans that a mutable God was totally unacceptable. In
this conflict between the Platonic doctrine of immutability and the literal
interpretation of Scriptures, what had to change? Augustine’s answer was that
the literal interpretation of Scripture had to change. For Augustine, the plain
narratives of Scripture had to be reinterpreted by spiritual or allegorical
methods. The Manichaeans believed the Old Testament revealed a God who was
mutable or could repent. Since the Platonists believed that God was immutable,
this idea of a repenting God was a source of ridicule for the Catholic Church.
Augustine was so embarrassed by these arguments that he chose to reinterpret
Scripture rather than refute the Platonic philosophy.
Augustine did
not learn that God was immutable from a study of the Scriptures? No! Under
Platonic influence, Augustine used his reason to see an immutable God in his
mind. Although he received this concept of an unchangeable or immutable God
from the Platonists, he incorporated it right into his Christian theology
without change.
Augustine only
utilized Scripture as a secondary proof in his defense of the immutability of
God. His main defense was rationalism. He wrote in his book, “Concerning the
Nature of the Good”,
Those things
which our faith holds and which reason
in whatever way has traced out, are fortified by the testimonies of the divine
Scriptures, so that those who by reason of feebler intellect are not able to
comprehend these things, may believe the divine authority, and so may deserve
to know. . . . Accordingly that God is unchangeable.7
Notice! Augustine maintained that reason traced out the
doctrine of immutability.
Augustine said
all things which happen are caused by the immovable God. After perusing the
Bible we can confidently declare – it does not speak of an immovable God. In
fact, the opposite is true. The God of the Bible, our God, is moved by our
prayers, our suffering, and our actions.
Augustine was
also influenced by Plotinus,8 a
Neo-Platonic philosopher. The concept of atemporality – God being in the state
of Eternal Now, outside of time – was reinforced by Plotinus. We see this
influence in Augustine’s exposition of the Eternal Now. Let’s examine a few of Plotinus
and Augustine’s parallel thoughts. They believed there was no past or future,
only present.
Plotinus wrote:
one sees
eternity in seeing a life that abides in the same, and always has the all present
to it, not now this, and then again that, but all things at once, and not now
some things, and then again others. . . . there will be no “was” about it, for
what is there that was for it and has passed away? Nor any “will be,” for what
will be for it? So there remains for it only to be in its being just what it
is. That, then, which was not, and will not be, but is only, which has being
which is static by not changing to the “will be,” nor ever having changed, this
is eternity.9
Augustine duplicated Plotinus’ thought in this statement:
For He does not
pass from this to that by transition of thought, but beholds all things with
absolute unchangeableness; so that of those things which emerge in time, the
future indeed, are not yet, and the present are now, and the past no longer
are; but all of these are by Him comprehended in His stable and eternal
presence.10
Plotinus said
the eternal did not have a “was” (past) or a “will be” (future) but only an
“is” (present). Since God exists in an eternal state, according to Plotinus,
the past, present and future should be viewed as existing in that present state
at the same time as the present. Augustine concurred. He said that God exists
in an eternal present in which the future and the past are comprehended as
existing now.
They both
believed there was no change in the Eternal Now. Plotinus wrote: “which is
static by not changing to the ‘will be,’ nor ever having changed”11 Augustine similarly stated: “but
beholds all things with absolute unchangeableness”12
The concept of
immutability again played a crucial role in the development of the doctrine of
atemporality. For God to be immutable, the future could add no knowledge to
what God already knows. For Plotinus and Augustine, this unchangeableness is
present in the eternal.
Modern
theologians have denied the basis of their rationalistic theology and even
criticized the philosophers by whom they have been influenced. For example,
Robert Morey, who “has earned degrees in philosophy,13 theology and cult evangelism,” wrote
this in his chapter, “The God’s of the Philosophers”, in Battle of the Gods.
Since it was
God who created the world with its space-time limitation, He Himself is not
limited by space or time, but greater
than both. Since He made the space-time universe, it does not make or control
God. To say that the creation is greater than the Creator is absurd. This is
why Christians have always said that God is eternal in the sense of
“timelessness” not “endless time.” To say that God exists in “endless time” is
to make time ultimate over God. It would make God depend on time for His own
existence. This would make Time a higher god than God!14
We must
evaluate this short statement. First, it is rationalistic thought which
maintains that space and time were created when God created the world. Morey
probably got this from the math of the new physics. The Bible always portrays
God in space and time, yet it never alludes to space-time exerting any control
over Him. Second, pagan philosophers like Plato and Aristotle were the ones who
maintained that God was in a state of timelessness. Third, just because God
does things one thing at a time, doesn’t make time “ultimate over God.” The
Bible described God doing things in sequence, one day at a time in the creation
account. That put no limitation on Him. We are slaves to time because we need
sleep, need to eat, and eventually die. God faces none of these. Time is no
burden to God. “With the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand
years as one day” (2 Pet 3:8).
The only thing
that counts in true biblical theology is God’s word. Therefore, we must look at
the biblical evidence. The foundation of the Calvinistic view of predestination
is immutability. Is God immutable? Is He impassible – not influenced by our
problems in any way? Does God ever change? The question is not, does God change
in His attributes. He doesn’t. He is omnipotent. He is always holy. God is
light. God is omniscient. God is love. He has many other attributes that do not
change. But, again, that is not the question. The question can be stated a
number of ways: Does God ever repent? Does God change His mind? Does God think
something will happen, and then it doesn’t? Does God show emotion? Does He
change in any way in the state of His being? I believe the answer to all these
questions is yes. These ideas, instead of degrading God, cause us to appreciate
and glorify Him. He does do the things asked in these questions, but the most
significant fact for me concerns His supposed impassability – He suffers. In
other words, He has passion. This is the opposite of having no passion –
impassability.
God suffers!
What comfort that gives me. Our God is touched by our sufferings. God suffers
because of us, with us, and for us. For instance, in Hosea 11:1-4,8,9 it says,
When Israel was
a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son. As they called them, so
they went from them. They sacrificed to the Baals, and burned incense to carved
images. I taught Ephraim to walk, taking them by their arms, but they did not
know that I healed them. I drew them with gentle cords, with bands of love, and
I was to them as those who take the yoke from their neck. I stooped and fed
them. . . . My people are bent on backsliding from Me. Though they call to the
Most High, none at all exalt Him. How can I give you up, Ephraim? How can I
hand you over, Israel? How can I make you like Admah? How can I set you like
Zeboiim? My heart churns within Me; My sympathy is stirred. I will not
execute the fierceness of My anger. I will not again destroy Ephraim. For I am
God, and not man, The Holy One in your midst, and I will not come with terror.
Then, we observe Him as the loving husband, in Hosea 1:2;
2:5,13; 3:1; and 6:4-7.
The LORD said
to Hosea: “Go, take yourself a wife of harlotry and children of harlotry, for
the land has committed great harlotry by departing from the LORD.” 2:5 “For
their mother has played the harlot; She who conceived them has behaved
shamefully. For she said, ‘I will go after my lovers, who give me my bread and
my water, my wool and my linen, my oil and my drink.’” 2:13 “She decked herself
with her earrings and jewelry, and went after her lovers; but Me she forgot,”
says the LORD. 3:1 “Go again, love a woman who is loved by a lover and is
committing adultery, just like the love of the LORD for the children of Israel,
who look to other gods and love the raisin cakes of the pagans.” 6:4-7 “O
Ephraim, what shall I do to you? O Judah, what shall I do to you?
For your faithfulness is like a morning cloud, and like the early dew it goes
away.”
But we have
been influenced by the Greek philosophy that has permeated Christianity. You
may think, a perfect God can’t suffer. But, it is true. When tragedy strikes,
when pain pierces deep – we are not the only ones who suffer. God suffers
longer and deeper than all of us put together. Where did this idea, the idea
that God can’t suffer, come from? It came from philosophy, not the Bible.
In addition to
the material by Plato, Christian theology has also been influenced by
Aristotle’s book, Metaphysics. That
pagan philosopher, Aristotle, was born in 384 B.C. Listen! “There must be
something which, existing in full actuality, produces motion without being
moved. That something cannot be otherwise than it is in any respect.” This line
of reasoning led to the doctrine of the impassability of God. This means,
nothing can affect God. He continued,
It is clear
from the foregoing argument that there is some essential individuality that is
eternal and immutable and distinct from perceptible things. . . . this
individuality must be unaffected by anything and unalterable .... [and finally,
after making some comments about the divine mind, he wrote,] what it thinks of
is what is most divine and most worthy of esteem. And in this It is unchanging,
because any change would be for the worse, and would be a kind of motion.
Although this
philosophy flies in the face of God’s word, it became the intellectual basis of
church doctrine. It continues to this day. They say, “God can’t feel and can’t
change.” Because of this, He can’t love, can’t suffer, and can’t be influenced.
However, the Bible shows frequently that, He does love; He does suffer; He is
influenced by prayer; and He does repent or change. In fact, we know He loved
the world so much that He gave Himself. He doesn’t make us ascend out of our
pain in this life. On the contrary, He descends into it, shares it with us, and
strengthens us through it. What a God! Look at the following passages: “Though
He was a Son, yet He learned obedience by the things which He suffered” (Heb
5:8). “Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own
blood, suffered outside the gate” (Heb 13:12). “For to this you were called,
because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should
follow His steps, Who committed no sin, nor was deceit found in His mouth; Who,
when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not
threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously” (1 Pet 2:21-23).
“For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might
bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit”
(1 Pet 3:18). “Therefore, since Christ suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves
also with the same mind, for he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from
sin” (1 Pet 4:1).
In addition to
these passages, we must realize that God was in Christ. John 1 says the word
was in the beginning with God and was God. Christ was God. He came down here to
suffer more intimately with us and then for us. Notice Hebrews 1:1-3:
God, who at
various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the
prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed
heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; who being the
brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all
things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat
down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.
According to Romans 5:8, this almighty God, “demonstrates
His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for
us.” Again, in Hebrews 2:9-18 it shows that He suffered for us.
But we see
Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death
crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death
for everyone. For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things and by whom
are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the captain of their
salvation perfect through sufferings. For both He who sanctifies and those who
are being sanctified are all of one, for which reason He is not ashamed to call
them brethren, saying: “I will declare Your name to My brethren; In the midst
of the assembly I will sing praise to You.” And again: “I will put My trust in
Him.” And again: “Here am I and the children whom God has given Me.” Inasmuch
then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise
shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power
of death, that is, the devil, and release those who through fear of death were
all their lifetime subject to bondage. For indeed He does not give aid to
angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham. Therefore, in all things
He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful
High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of
the people. For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to
aid those who are tempted.
Therefore, we must conclude that the impassability of God
along with immutability, is not found in the Bible. It is only found in
rationalistic thinking influenced by Greek philosophy.
Immutability is
discussed more frequently by modern theologians. It is similar to
impassability. It means unchanging. There are some portions of Scripture which
say God does not change. For instance, Malachi 3:6 says “For I am the Lord, I
do not change; therefore you are not consumed, O sons of Jacob.” But this just
means He is not going to go back on His promise to David. That’s what Psalm
132:10,11 shows, “For Your servant David’s sake, do not turn away the face of
Your Anointed. The Lord has sworn in truth to David. He will not turn from it:
‘I will set upon your throne the fruit of your body.’”
Some Scripture
shows God’s anguish over Israel’s ungodly behavior. God was speaking about
Israel and Judah like this in Jeremiah 3:8-10:
The Lord said
also to me in the days of Josiah the king: “Have you seen what backsliding
Israel has done? She has gone up on every high mountain and under every green
tree, and there played the harlot. And I said, after she had done all these
things, [‘She will]15 return
to Me.’ But she did not return. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it. Then I
saw that for all the causes for which backsliding Israel had committed
adultery, I had put her away and given her a certificate of divorce; yet her
treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but went and played the harlot also. So
it came to pass, through her casual harlotry, that she defiled the land and
committed adultery with stones and trees. And yet for all this her treacherous
sister Judah has not turned to Me with her whole heart, but in pretense,” says the
Lord.
God thought or said16
that Israel would return to Him. He expected Israel to return. But Israel
grieved Him again. She did not return.
In a similar
manner, God spoke of Israel in Isaiah 5:1-4:
Now let me sing
to my Well-beloved a song of my Beloved regarding His vineyard: My Well-beloved
has a vineyard on a very fruitful hill. He dug it up and cleared out its
stones, and planted it with the choicest vine. He built a tower in its midst,
and also made a winepress in it; so He expected it to bring forth good grapes.
But it brought forth wild grapes. And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men
of Judah, Judge, please, between Me and My vineyard. What more could have been
done to My vineyard that I have not done in it? Why then, when I expected it to
bring forth good grapes, did it bring forth wild grapes?
God was grieved by their response to His graciousness. He
expected good fruit, but there was none. God did all He could do with free
agents. “What more could have been done to My vineyard that I have not done in
it?” They rebelled. Further, the New Testament shows us that the Holy Spirit
can be grieved (Eph 4:30).
Finally, some
of God’s actions with Hezekiah are related in 2 Kings 20:1-6. God emphatically
told Hezekiah that he was going to die.
In those days
Hezekiah was sick and near death. And Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, went
to him and said to him, “Thus says the Lord: ‘Set your house in order, for you
shall die, and not live.’” Then he turned his face toward the wall, and prayed
to the Lord, saying, “Remember now, O Lord, I pray, how I have walked before
You in truth and with a loyal heart, and have done what was good in Your
sight.” And Hezekiah wept bitterly. And it happened, before Isaiah had gone out
into the middle court, that the word of the Lord came to him, saying, “Return
and tell Hezekiah the leader of My people, ‘Thus says the Lord, the God of
David your father: “I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; surely I
will heal you. On the third day you shall go up to the house of the Lord. And I
will add to your days fifteen years.’””
Hezekiah prayed, and the Lord responded. This certainly is
not the impassable, immutable God of Plato, Plotinus, Augustine, and Calvin.
There are some
portions of Scripture which genuinely say God does change His mind. Here are
some of the most obvious ones. In Genesis 6:5-7, God shows His passion and
mutability. The AV stated it well:
And GOD saw
that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination
of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented17 the LORD that he had made man on the
earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 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.
The NIV translated it this way:
The LORD saw
how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination
of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. The LORD was grieved
that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. So
the LORD said, “I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the
earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of
the air—for I am grieved that I have made them.”18
Either way you translate it, an honest translation must
show at the least, God was grieved. He was sorry that He had created man. It
caused the impassible God to have intense feeling. It was the cause for the
immutable God to change His mind. This didn’t just happen once. It happened
repeatedly.
What does it
mean when this word <j*n~, nacham,
repent, is used for God’s actions? Calvinists like to call this action an anthropomorphism
or and anthropopathism, but is our God such a poor communicator that He would
continually use a figure of speech which showed He repented, was grieved, or
changed His mind, if the opposite idea was the truth? Of course not! My God is
the greatest communicator! This Hebrew word, in any of its translations,
undermines the rationalistic idea of immutability derived from Greek
philosophy. As I had to, we must all jettison our preconceived ideas and return
to God’s word for an understanding of His nature and works.
Three more
passages should lay the ideas of impassability and immutability to rest.
Numbers 14:22,23,26,27 says,
“Because all
these men who have seen My glory and the signs which I did in Egypt and in the
wilderness, and have put Me to the test now these ten times, and have not
heeded My voice, they certainly shall not see the land of which I swore to
their fathers, nor shall any of those who rejected Me see it.” . . . And the
Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying, “How long shall I bear with this evil
congregation who complain against Me? I have heard the complaints which the
children of Israel make against Me.”
Then, in Psalm 78:38-41 it says,
But He, being
full of compassion, forgave their iniquity, and did not destroy them. Yes, many
a time He turned His anger away, and did not stir up all His wrath; For He
remembered that they were but flesh, a breath that passes away and does not
come again. How often they provoked Him in the wilderness and grieved Him in
the desert! Yes, again and again they tempted God and limited the Holy One of
Israel.
Later, God expressed His passion. In Jeremiah 15:6, God
even said, “I am weary of repenting!” In these passages we not only see that
God changed his mind ten times (mutability), but He was weary (passion) of
repenting.19
God’s
repentance when He changed His mind after Moses prayed in Exodus 32:9-14 shows
us something about God’s foreknowledge. We understand from Titus 1:2, “God, who
cannot lie,”20 that God does not lie.
Since He does not lie, could He have told Moses that He was going to destroy
the nation when He knew He was not. No! On the other hand, if God changed His
mind because Moses prayed, He did not lie.
God made many
contingent promises. He even stated in 1 Samuel 13:13,14 that He would have
established Saul’s kingdom forever.
And Samuel said
to Saul, “You have done foolishly. You have not kept the commandment of the
Lord your God, which He commanded you. For now the Lord would have established
your kingdom over Israel forever. “But now your kingdom shall not continue. The
Lord has sought for Himself a man after His own heart, and the Lord has
commanded him to be commander over His people, because you have not kept what
the Lord commanded you.”
Saul had disobeyed, and his kingdom was not established at
all. Instead, in 1 Samuel 16, Samuel anointed David.
Does this mean
that God does not know any of the future? Of course not. God knows the future
of the events He predetermines. In fact, that is what the Scriptures show us.
For instance, He determined that anyone who believed in Christ as his Savior in
this dispensation, would be totally secure in his salvation. This is the
corporate body I was talking about previously. He inspired Paul to write this
in Romans 8:29-32:
For whom He
foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He
might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these
He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified,
these He also glorified.
In Isaiah 46:9-11, God shows us how He can declare what is
going to happen in the future. He makes it happen!
Declaring the
end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done,
saying, “My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure, calling a
bird of prey from the east, the man who executes My counsel, from a far
country. Indeed I have spoken it; I will also bring it to pass. I have
purposed it; I will also do it.”
He makes a similar statement in Ephesians 1:11,
“In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being
predestined according to the purpose of Him who works [the]21 all things [taV pavnta] according to the counsel of His will.” The specific
all things He is referring to is the body of Christ of verses 10 and 23, “that
in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in
one all things [taV pavnta] in Christ,
both which are in heaven and which are on earth – in Him; (23) “which is His
body, the fullness of Him who fills all [taV
pavnta] in all”.
This has to do
with our eternal security, since in 1:4,5 “He chose us in Him before the
foundation of the world, [to] be holy and without blame before Him in love,
having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according
to the good pleasure of His will”. He chose the body of Christ to be holy and
blameless before Him making it sure by His predestination. It doesn’t say He
chose us as individuals to be saved. It says He chose us in Him. Because we are in Christ, we are chosen. Christ is the
elect one. We become members of the body of Christ by believing. Once we
believe – we are part of the predestined corporation.
My conclusion
is: We are not foreknown as individuals, chosen as individuals, or predestined
as individuals. According to the Gospel of John 1:9, everyone has been
enlightened by Jesus Christ, “That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.” The
father has drawn everyone who will listen, that’s what it says in John 6:44,45.
“No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will
raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’
Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me”. The
Son draws everyone in John 12:32. “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all to Myself [pavnta" eJlkuvsw proV" ejmautovn]”.
Christ said that the Holy Spirit would testify of Christ in John 15:26. “But
when the Helper comes . . . the Spirit of truth . . . He will testify of Me”.
It’s up to each person to respond to the call of the Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit.
Since God did
not predestinate individuals to be saved, we must take the opportunities to
present the gospel of grace. We should pray for boldness to open our mouths to
present the mystery just as Paul did in Ephesians 6:19, “Pray . . . for me,
that utterance may be given to me, that I may open my mouth boldly to make
known the mystery of the gospel.”
1 Bierderwolf, William E., How Can God Answer Prayer?, The Winona Publishing Co., Chicago,
Ill., 1906.
2 Plato, Republic
I, Loeb Classical Library, Book II, pp. 191-197.
3 Augustine. St.
Augustine's Confessions I, Loeb Classical Library, Bk VI, p. 285.
4 Warfield, B., Calvin
and Augustine, Presb. & Reformed Pub. Co., 1956, p.22.
5 Latourette, Op.
cit., pp. 95,96. Beaver, R. P. et. al., Eerdman's
Handbook to the World's Religions, p. 113. Mani (216-276), a Persian
prophet born in Mesopotamia, founded this sect. He was influenced by
Zoroastrianism, ancient Babylonian beliefs, and Judaism, as well as
Christianity. The Cologne Codex confirmed Arabic traditions that Mani was
raised among a Jewish-Christian Baptist group. One of his writings, The Living Gospel, proclaimed Mani as
the Paraclete foretold by Christ.
6 Oats, W.J., “On the Morals of the Catholic Church,” Basic Writings of Saint Augustine, New
York: Random House Publishers, 1948, p. 327. My emphasis.
7 “Concerning the Nature of the Good,” Basic Writings of St. Augustine, New
York: Random House, p. 440.
8 Eerdman’s
Handbook to the World’s Religions, pp. 45-48. The Neo-Platonist, “Plotinus
(about 205-269) made a journey to the East and returned with an arsenal of
monistic ideas against the rapidly-growing Christian church in the Roman
Empire. To claim the Greek philosophical heritage he included some ideas from
Plato; his system of contemplation was identical with the yoga of Hindu monism.
Plotinus failed to rally the Roman Empire against Jesus Christ, but he was
rediscovered and introduced through the back door many centuries later.”
9 Plotinus, Ennead,
The Loeb Classical Library, Book III, p. 305.
10 The City of
God, Modern Library, Random House, Book XI, p. 364.
11 Ennead,
p.305.
12 The City of
God, p. 364.
13 My emphasis.
14 Robert Morey, Battle
of the Gods, p. 50. Augustine wrote in, The
City of God, Book XV, p. 515, “The anger of God is not a disturbing emotion
of His mind, but a judgment by which punishment is inflicted upon sin. His
thought and reconsideration also are the unchangeable reason which changes
things; for He does not, like man, repent of anything He has done, because in
all matters His decision is as inflexible as His prescience is certain.” All
these dogmatic statements were driven by his philosophical presuppositions.
Scripture contradicts many of his statements.
15 My modification of the New King James is based upon
the Hebrew. Also confer the following translations: ASV, And I said after she had done all these things, she will
return unto me; but she returned not: and her treacherous sister Judah saw it. Darby, And I said, after she hath done
all these things, she will return unto me; but she returned not. And her sister
Judah, the treacherous, saw it. NASB,
And I thought, “After she has done all these things, she will return to Me”;
but she did not return, and her treacherous sister Judah saw it. NIV, I thought that after she had done
all this she would return to me but she did not, and her unfaithful sister
Judah saw it. NRSV, And I thought,
“After she has done all this she will return to me”; but she did not return,
and her false sister Judah saw it.
16 The Hebrew word is rm^a)w`, “and
I said”. Some translate it, “and I thought”.
17 The Hebrew word is <j#N`Y]w~
way nachem, Niphal of nacham. It was translated repent 41 out of 108 times it was
used in the AV. The modern translations use the word relent to soften the idea
when it refers to God. But, relent has the idea of giving in. That gives me the
idea that God gives up, as in a wrestling match. That sounds too demeaning to
me.
18 My emphasis to show the translation of <j*n~ , nacham, repent, and God’s passion.
19 Look up repent in your Strong’s. You’ll be amazed how
many times God repents.
20 oJ ajyeudhV" qeoV",
Robertson, Word Pictures, “The
non-lying God.”
21 In this sentence, I added this definite article [the]
in front of all things because the Greek had taV pavnta all
things with a definite article. When all things has a definite article it is
not referring to a universal all things but the all things limited by the
context.