This isn't an entirely unpacked idea in my head - but I'm wondering if there is some discernable difference between the OT and NT.
There is, however, a lot of God's steadfastness and unchangingness in the Old Testament as well as the New, particularly in the Psalms. "For his steadfast love endureth forever."
Other proof texts:
“For I the Lord do not change" --Malachi 3:6
"God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?" - Numbers 23:19
"The Lord of hosts has sworn: “As I have planned, so shall it be, and as I have purposed, so shall it stand," - Isaiah 14:24
"The counsel of the Lord stands forever, the plans of his heart to all generations." --Psalm 33:11
Without going into ancient languages, I'm not sure I'm on strong ground but I wonder if there might be a difference in some of the thoughts/words here.
Again, I might be entirely wrong here - but I can think of occasions where I can have a long-term plan but be prepared to haggle over details.
So I might be telling my family about my plans for a worldwide holiday. My daughter might say "don't do that, it is really daft at your age, haven't you got better things to be doing you stupid old fart.."
And I might reply "No, sorry darling. I've made my mind up and there is nothing you could possible boy say to change my mind.."
And then (after some hours) she will eventually give up trying to persuade me and might say something like
"Ok, you fool. At least change your itinerary so that you don't travel to Libya.."
And I might say "oh ok I suppose so"
--
One can, in normal language, be steadfast in plans whilst still be able to be talked into changing minds.
That’s the position of most open theists. The version I most resonate with is likened to a chess match. Like a chess master, God knows all the possibilities, every choice we could make and the multiple contingencies that could stem from each. But like a chess master, he can’t know which choice his free creatures will make— but has a plan in place for how he will accomplish his ultimate purposes in each contingency
I like the idea of God as a chess master with a redemptive plan for every contingency. It certainly supports Mordecai's admonition to Esther: 'If you keep silence at such a time as this, relief and deliverance will rise for the Jews from another quarter, but you and your father's family will perish. Who knows? Perhaps you have come to royal dignity for just such a time as this' (Esther 4: 14).
This isn't an entirely unpacked idea in my head - but I'm wondering if there is some discernable difference between the OT and NT.
I'm thinking quite a lot of prayers in the OT can be said to be appeals for God to change his mind - or at least to start acting to change things that at present are not changing.
Whereas prayer in the gospels seems to be more about acceptance of the reality of life.
Even the ideas of love for enemies and forgiving wrong appears to start from a position of acceptance of the reality of the situation and ask instead for a personal changed perspective rather that trying to change the deity's mind about (I don't know) turning them to dust, making them pay or even making them quiver in fear and stop being so horrid.
I dunno... I think you have prayers for healing, etc in the NT that are not at all “accepting the realities of life”. In fact, other than the notable exception of Gesthemsne, can’t think of many that do
You're both right. Minutiae were affected by prayer; wrought very mainly personal miracles at the odd rock concert level. But usually, 99.9% of the time, from even a hundred yards away, nobody would have noticed a thing. Society was barely affected initially. Only subversively for centuries.
This isn't an entirely unpacked idea in my head - but I'm wondering if there is some discernable difference between the OT and NT.
I'm thinking quite a lot of prayers in the OT can be said to be appeals for God to change his mind - or at least to start acting to change things that at present are not changing.
Whereas prayer in the gospels seems to be more about acceptance of the reality of life.
Even the ideas of love for enemies and forgiving wrong appears to start from a position of acceptance of the reality of the situation and ask instead for a personal changed perspective rather that trying to change the deity's mind about (I don't know) turning them to dust, making them pay or even making them quiver in fear and stop being so horrid.
I dunno... I think you have prayers for healing, etc in the NT that are not at all “accepting the realities of life”. In fact, other than the notable exception of Gesthemsne, can’t think of many that do
Well yes, that is true. I can't quite express what I mean.
Certainly in the NT there is the sense that one should pray for healing, but also (perhaps) that acceptance that the deity may not provide healing - and if he doesn't, that's not necessarily a sign of a lack of faith or whatever.
Which is perhaps suggestive of the idea that in some situations the deity was going to heal, but was waiting to be asked. And in others there is a "bigger picture" so healing isn't appropriate even if we desire it.
I was also contemplating the Lord's prayer. It certainly asks for things, notably daily bread. And yet it is noticeable that the things asked for are basic necessities and beyond that a changed attitude to others.
I dunno, maybe it isn't a real thing - it feels like it is to me even though I lack the vocabulary.
Jesus was wise enough not to give His disciples a Creed (He knew what they would do with it), but to give them the words of the Lord's Prayer instead. It contains only 66 words. And it has been said that it is impossible to say these words without a change taking place in the soul.
This prayer has 2 parts to it. The first three petitions are about God's name, God's kingdom and God will. They call attention to God's greatness. The next three petitions are about our food, our forgiveness and our holiness. They call attention to our human needs.
The 2 parts have a very different feel to them. The first feels majestic and transcendent. The second part feels mundane and commonplace. But there is a connection being expressed between the life of God on heaven and our human lives here on earth. It unites the big and the little, the glorious and the common. The spirituality of the Lord's Prayer is filled with eternity and and woven into ordinary life.
Jesus was wise enough not to give His disciples a Creed (He knew what they would do with it), but to give them the words of the Lord's Prayer instead. It contains only 66 words. And it has been said that it is impossible to say these words without a change taking place in the soul.
This prayer has 2 parts to it. The first three petitions are about God's name, God's kingdom and God will. They call attention to God's greatness. The next three petitions are about our food, our forgiveness and our holiness. They call attention to our human needs.
The 2 parts have a very different feel to them. The first feels majestic and transcendent. The second part feels mundane and commonplace. But there is a connection being expressed between the life of God on heaven and our human lives here on earth. It unites the big and the little, the glorious and the common. The spirituality of the Lord's Prayer is filled with eternity and and woven into ordinary life.
The Lord's Prayer instead of a creed? I've never heard that before.
According to Wikipedia (on the Apostles' Creed,) "The earlier text evolved from simpler texts based on Matthew 28:19, part of the Great Commission, and it has been argued that it was already in written form by the late 2nd century."
So the basis for the Creed was also given to the apostles by Christ.
Matthew 28: 19 is the basis of the doctrine of the Trinity. The first Creed is usually considered to be the statement of Paul that 'Jesus Christ is Lord' (Phil 2: 11). It was a potentially treasonable statement for early Christians to make in the Roman empire where Caesar was regarded as Lord. It is the reason given for martyrdoms rather than beliefs about the Trinity which the Romans wouldn't have minded being polytheistic anyway. It is the exclusive claim of Christianity that made the statement of Paul so subversive.
Creeds really emerged as a result of disputes during the C4-5th and were more intended as being a safeguard against popular heresies. The Nicene Creed is a bit problematic but a new statement would never be agreed upon by all the churches. But the Lord's Prayer can always be shared at ecumenical services. As an expression of common faith it works much better than a Creed.
Although calling God 'Abba' Father was considered quite radical in C 1st Palestine.
The gospels are a revelation of the divine identity of Christ. Mark's gospel begins with the words, 'the good news of Jesus Christ, the son of God' and at the end we hear the testimony of the centurion, 'Truly, this man was the son of God.'
The gospel narratives emphasise the Lordship of Christ. Jesus asks, 'Who do you say I am ?' And Peter's confession, 'You are the Christ,' marks the turning point of the story. And the climax is the response to the Risen Christ by Mary Magdalene, 'I have seen the Lord' and Doubting Thomas, 'My Lord and my God' (John 20: 18,28).
Pauls summary of the gospel is, 'If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him. From the dead, you will be saved' (Romans 10: 9).
In 156 AD the martyr Polycarp, a disciple of John was burned at the stake for refusing to offer incense to the Roman emperor. He was asked by the Proconsul to apostasise saying, 'Have respect for your old age, swear by the fortune of Caesar. Repent and say, 'Down with the Atheists!' Polycarp declared, '86 years I have served Him and He has done me no wrong. How can I blaspheme my King and my Saviour?'
It's interesting that the Christians were regarded as being atheists by the Roman authorities.
Further to the Lord's Prayer, its 2 part structure is mirrored in the Ten Commandments. The first ones set out our relationship towards God and the second ones set out our relationship towards other people. So perhaps Jesus was reflecting upon the meaning of the commandments when His disciples asked Him how they should pray.
God does nothing except in response to believing prayer.
John Wesley.
Who prayed for the Flood? For the expulsion from Paradise? For the Babylonian Captivity? For the creation itself? Wesley has said some stupid things but this takes the biscuit.
God does nothing except in response to believing prayer.
John Wesley.
Who prayed for the Flood? For the expulsion from Paradise? For the Babylonian Captivity? For the creation itself? Wesley has said some stupid things but this takes the biscuit.
To be fair, I think there must have been a context to Wesley saying this, probably that God doesn't answer the prayers of a non-believer. I myself personally wouldn't necessarily agree with that, because anyone should be able to pray - there isn't a qualifying exam you have to pass, for your prayers to be heard, so to speak.
Read back a bit further to the idea of God as a redemptive chessmaster. He seeks to reclaim the mistakes of humanity.
I once heard of a soldier who refused to attend church because he had seen so much suffering in WW2. He talked to a bishop who asked him if he thought the war was the fault of God or of humans? The following week he returned and said to him that he had thought about this and he didn't blame God.
The Creation is an expression of God's very nature. We were created out of love for God to love. And God hopes that we will freely choose to love Him in return.
God does nothing except in response to believing prayer.
John Wesley.
Who prayed for the Flood? For the expulsion from Paradise? For the Babylonian Captivity? For the creation itself? Wesley has said some stupid things but this takes the biscuit.
To be fair, I think there must have been a context to Wesley saying this, probably that God doesn't answer the prayers of a non-believer. I myself personally wouldn't necessarily agree with that, because anyone should be able to pray - there isn't a qualifying exam you have to pass, for your prayers to be heard, so to speak.
That's not to say that repentance, fasting, personal holiness etc. have no affect.
God does nothing except in response to believing prayer.
John Wesley.
Who prayed for the Flood? For the expulsion from Paradise? For the Babylonian Captivity? For the creation itself? Wesley has said some stupid things but this takes the biscuit.
This isn't an entirely unpacked idea in my head - but I'm wondering if there is some discernable difference between the OT and NT.
I'm thinking quite a lot of prayers in the OT can be said to be appeals for God to change his mind - or at least to start acting to change things that at present are not changing.
Whereas prayer in the gospels seems to be more about acceptance of the reality of life.
Even the ideas of love for enemies and forgiving wrong appears to start from a position of acceptance of the reality of the situation and ask instead for a personal changed perspective rather that trying to change the deity's mind about (I don't know) turning them to dust, making them pay or even making them quiver in fear and stop being so horrid.
I dunno... I think you have prayers for healing, etc in the NT that are not at all “accepting the realities of life”. In fact, other than the notable exception of Gesthemsne, can’t think of many that do
Well yes, that is true. I can't quite express what I mean.
Certainly in the NT there is the sense that one should pray for healing, but also (perhaps) that acceptance that the deity may not provide healing - and if he doesn't, that's not necessarily a sign of a lack of faith or whatever.
Which is perhaps suggestive of the idea that in some situations the deity was going to heal, but was waiting to be asked. And in others there is a "bigger picture" so healing isn't appropriate even if we desire it.
Very much agree with that. Jesus does not seem a fan of "name it and claim it" theology." But he also seems to be teaching the disciples to pray big, bold, audacious prayers-- to ask big things of God with expectation.
I really like John's term for miracles-- "sign". That makes sense to me. Healing & miracles are not tricks, they're not wages we earn for good behavior or great faith or asking in the proper way. They are signs-- signs of the coming Kingdom. They point to the reality of God's presence and activity in the world. But because we live in an era where the Kingdom is both "now and not yet"-- where the Kingdom "of this world" is still present-- we have signs of the Kingdom of this world as well. We have unanswered prayer: sickness, alienation, suffering, persecution, violence and death that are not healed. Signs of "the Kingdom of this world"-- i.e. "the realities of this life." But we also have signs of the new Kingdom: reconciliation, healing, restoration. In a time when the Kingdom if "now and not yet" that is exactly what we should expect: to see signs of both Kingdoms. That should call us to pray more, not less. Prayer seems to be one of the "weapons of the Spirit" in which we engage this battle for the Kingdom.
God does nothing except in response to believing prayer.
John Wesley.
What somethings does He do then?
Well you seem to believe he does nothing ever, with or without prayer. What would Rev'd John McGinley think?
Seem. The ironic root of of dogma. If He is then He is all there is. So He does everything. As only it can be done. Sufficiently. As the Talmudic El Shaddai would.
God does nothing except in response to believing prayer.
John Wesley.
What somethings does He do then?
Well you seem to believe he does nothing ever, with or without prayer. What would Rev'd John McGinley think?
Seem. The ironic root of of dogma. If He is then He is all there is. So He does everything. As only it can be done. Sufficiently. As the Talmudic El Shaddai would.
John and I have different narratives of God.
That sounds like a mixture of Pantheism and Judaism.
That didn't seem to me to be what you were saying here, although I admit I found it hard to parse that post.
something keeps generating [material reality] and always has
Sorry 'bout that. But I see no paradox between universes being closed systems once they're up and running and what precedes them (and pops up in them, incarnations and what not) being completely open. Just my lack of imagination I'm sure.
Further to the Lord's Prayer, its 2 part structure is mirrored in the Ten Commandments. The first ones set out our relationship towards God and the second ones set out our relationship towards other people. So perhaps Jesus was reflecting upon the meaning of the commandments when His disciples asked Him how they should pray.
If you mean why don't I try believing prayer, believing what?
God does nothing except in response to believing prayer.
John Wesley.
Who prayed for the Flood? For the expulsion from Paradise? For the Babylonian Captivity? For the creation itself? Wesley has said some stupid things but this takes the biscuit.
To be fair, I think there must have been a context to Wesley saying this, probably that God doesn't answer the prayers of a non-believer. I myself personally wouldn't necessarily agree with that, because anyone should be able to pray - there isn't a qualifying exam you have to pass, for your prayers to be heard, so to speak.
That's not to say that repentance, fasting, personal holiness etc. have no affect.
If you're an all objecting omniscient God you either create a universe within which you are the master puppeteer or you create an infinite universe within a creation of multiply-infinite universes. Such that free will operates. Basically creating such that you can't be the puppet master. And you allow life to evolve. Not controlling how it happens. And you allow the troubled beings who evolve to interact with you. God's motives for the thing being unknowable really. A tomato might as well marvel at the life of a human.
If you are God, you will create a universe that corresponds to your nature. Whether that can be fitted into either-or categories human beings might try to impose on you will be irrelevant.
False Dichotomy Of The Year So Far Award.
Creation has to be what it is. Autonomous. Regardless of - with or without - purpose. The universe reveals nothing about God apart from that He is creative. Beyond that He has no choice at all. And in it either. Choice, 'free will', is an utterly meaningless concept. If God doesn't have it, and obviously doesn't, how can we? What is it? What could it be?
If you're right, that means what we call creation can't really be called "creation" at all, doesn't it?
No. It's fine by me. What would you call creation?
If you're an all objecting omniscient God you either create a universe within which you are the master puppeteer or you create an infinite universe within a creation of multiply-infinite universes. Such that free will operates. Basically creating such that you can't be the puppet master. And you allow life to evolve. Not controlling how it happens. And you allow the troubled beings who evolve to interact with you. God's motives for the thing being unknowable really. A tomato might as well marvel at the life of a human.
If you are God, you will create a universe that corresponds to your nature. Whether that can be fitted into either-or categories human beings might try to impose on you will be irrelevant.
Yes, if we try to reduce God to our level, it's little wonder some end up not believing in any sort of "god" at all.
Isn't this the purpose of all religion? to confine God to our level.
To bring REVELATION concerning God is the object of all religion, not to reduce or confine God to our level (which is impossible anyway.)
Quite the reverse.
Really?
Aye. NO... can explain I'm quite sure. Religion binds and blinds the largest of groups, that's it's evolutionary function.
Take courage: in addition to the Spirit, salvation, and hope, are still to be found on your side of the Channel too.
Oooh. I'm being crept up on. Just felt moved! How frightfully Wesleyan.
This IS all your fault. Or Somebody's. I realise that when I say I take Pascal's wager, I really, really haven't. Taking it means invoking Jesus as writ and the Holy Spirit too. It hit me walking to work this morning. Where I am constantly bullied by my truly charming, disarming boss, who knows I love him. Paul's advice to slaves came to mind.
Sigh : ) so, I take a great Heraclitean loop of the wager : ) That's me. Can't stop smiling. Uh OH! Not the 'holy laughter' AGAIN! That was a great day. Oh dear!
God does nothing except in response to believing prayer.
John Wesley.
Who prayed for the Flood? For the expulsion from Paradise? For the Babylonian Captivity? For the creation itself? Wesley has said some stupid things but this takes the biscuit.
To be fair, I think there must have been a context to Wesley saying this, probably that God doesn't answer the prayers of a non-believer. I myself personally wouldn't necessarily agree with that, because anyone should be able to pray - there isn't a qualifying exam you have to pass, for your prayers to be heard, so to speak.
That's not to say that repentance, fasting, personal holiness etc. have no affect.
Take courage: in addition to the Spirit, salvation, and hope, are still to be found on your side of the Channel too.
Oooh. I'm being crept up on. Just felt moved! How frightfully Wesleyan.
This IS all your fault. Or Somebody's. I realise that when I say I take Pascal's wager, I really, really haven't. Taking it means invoking Jesus as writ and the Holy Spirit too. It hit me walking to work this morning. Where I am constantly bullied by my truly charming, disarming boss, who knows I love him. Paul's advice to slaves came to mind.
Sigh : ) so, I take a great Heraclitean loop of the wager : ) That's me. Can't stop smiling. Uh OH! Not the 'holy laughter' AGAIN! That was a great day. Oh dear!
LOL!
"Holy laughter?" Yes, I've heard about that - just make sure there's someone to help you when you fall down.
Sigh : ) so, I take a great Heraclitean loop of the wager : ) That's me. Can't stop smiling. Uh OH! Not the 'holy laughter' AGAIN! That was a great day. Oh dear!
LOL!
It's a long time since I've passed on that kind of anointing
In the end it was laughter that triggered the breakthrough in his thinking (...) Love laughter, which sounds loudly as heaven's gates swing open, and dies away as they shut
Link; the last part is attributed to Malcolm Muggeridge by Os Guinness. Good stuff about fools there, too. The Gravedigger File is easily one of the ten Christian books that have had the most influence on me.
God does nothing except in response to believing prayer.
John Wesley.
Who prayed for the Flood? For the expulsion from Paradise? For the Babylonian Captivity? For the creation itself? Wesley has said some stupid things but this takes the biscuit.
To be fair, I think there must have been a context to Wesley saying this, probably that God doesn't answer the prayers of a non-believer. I myself personally wouldn't necessarily agree with that, because anyone should be able to pray - there isn't a qualifying exam you have to pass, for your prayers to be heard, so to speak.
That's not to say that repentance, fasting, personal holiness etc. have no affect.
On what?
On what I just said previously.
What, prayers are heard? Okayyyyyyyy. They affect God? Does He effect anything as a result?
God does nothing except in response to believing prayer.
John Wesley.
Who prayed for the Flood? For the expulsion from Paradise? For the Babylonian Captivity? For the creation itself? Wesley has said some stupid things but this takes the biscuit.
To be fair, I think there must have been a context to Wesley saying this, probably that God doesn't answer the prayers of a non-believer. I myself personally wouldn't necessarily agree with that, because anyone should be able to pray - there isn't a qualifying exam you have to pass, for your prayers to be heard, so to speak.
That's not to say that repentance, fasting, personal holiness etc. have no affect.
On what?
On what I just said previously.
What, prayers are heard? Okayyyyyyyy. They affect God? Does He effect anything as a result?
Believe it or not, I agree, but not in the material world. Not for a lonnnnng while.
The Ninevites would beg to differ. The problems start when people think they can use God like a divine vending-machine where, so long as they get the formula right, they can get anything they want. We cannot tell God what to do, nor for that matter what He can't do.
The gospel narratives emphasise the Lordship of Christ. Jesus asks, 'Who do you say I am ?' And Peter's confession, 'You are the Christ,' marks the turning point of the story. And the climax is the response to the Risen Christ by Mary Magdalene, 'I have seen the Lord' and Doubting Thomas, 'My Lord and my God' (John 20: 18,28).
How can I blaspheme my King and my Saviour?'
Peter says and does some silly things, but where it really matters he gets it so right
Believe it or not, I agree, but not in the material world. Not for a lonnnnng while.
The Ninevites would beg to differ. The problems start when people think they can use God like a divine vending-machine where, so long as they get the formula right, they can get anything they want. We cannot tell God what to do, nor for that matter what He can't do.
That's even longer. And they encountered nothing material if they encountered anything at all. A myth about a man fulfilling their myths. We know what He can and can't, does and doesn't do in the material world. He tells us. By His inaction.
Believe it or not, I agree, but not in the material world. Not for a lonnnnng while.
The Ninevites would beg to differ. The problems start when people think they can use God like a divine vending-machine where, so long as they get the formula right, they can get anything they want. We cannot tell God what to do, nor for that matter what He can't do.
That's even longer. And they encountered nothing material if they encountered anything at all. A myth about a man fulfilling their myths. We know what He can and can't, does and doesn't do in the material world. He tells us. By His inaction.
What's wrong with a bit of silence? It is always a creative space. It's where Elijah heard the still, small voice of God. Maybe He was, speaking in his heart?
Believe it or not, I agree, but not in the material world. Not for a lonnnnng while.
The Ninevites would beg to differ. The problems start when people think they can use God like a divine vending-machine where, so long as they get the formula right, they can get anything they want. We cannot tell God what to do, nor for that matter what He can't do.
That's even longer. And they encountered nothing material if they encountered anything at all. A myth about a man fulfilling their myths. We know what He can and can't, does and doesn't do in the material world. He tells us. By His inaction.
It sounds more like you are trying to tell Him.
And I'm telling it like I see, hear, read, touch, feel, think it. If I'm wrong, He can tell me.
I get that many people don't agree with and don't like the idea that God does not change. But, since many people have said here that the changeability or non-changeability of God is a mystery and not something we can understand, why is saying that God does not change a theologically problematic or even a harmful idea? What other bad ideas can it lead to?
I'm not quite sure why, if someone likes the idea of a God that listens to prayers and responds to them, why it is so terrible to believe that God already knows our prayers before they happen and makes one decision outside of time to respond to all of them. He does not change, but he still takes our prayers into account. Our prayers have results on what happens in the world (and in the afterlife, in my belief), but they do not change God.
I would take this one step further and say that God's relationship with humans has always been and will always be the same, before and after the fall and before and after the incarnation, life, passion, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ. Christ still saves us and doesn't just give us an example to follow, but He does so at all times, even going back to before His birth. People may have understood God differently in the past and known different amounts about Him, but God was not any more or less merciful. Every covenant has always applied in all of human history.
One thing I've never quite understood is why God can't feel emotions. I suppose people think the feeling emotions means that He can feel one emotion at one moment and another emotion at another. But if He can love us, why can't He feel love for us? I also suppose people think that an emotion implies irrationality - but I think emotion and reason are inextricably linked in any action of a mind.
Maybe immutability and "changing one's mind" can be reconciled as two different ways of explaining the same thing, just at impassibility and "feeling" love, compassion, etc., are also reconcilable.
I get that many people don't agree with and don't like the idea that God does not change. But, since many people have said here that the changeability or non-changeability of God is a mystery and not something we can understand, why is saying that God does not change a theologically problematic or even a harmful idea? What other bad ideas can it lead to?
What's mysterious about God's immutability?
I'm not quite sure why, if someone likes the idea of a God that listens to prayers and responds to them, why it is so terrible to believe that God already knows our prayers before they happen and makes one decision outside of time to respond to all of them. He does not change, but he still takes our prayers into account. Our prayers have results on what happens in the world (and in the afterlife, in my belief), but they do not change God.
A God who changes things beyond us because we ask is a God who changes.
I would take this one step further and say that God's relationship with humans has always been and will always be the same, before and after the fall and before and after the incarnation, life, passion, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ. Christ still saves us and doesn't just give us an example to follow, but He does so at all times, even going back to before His birth. People may have understood God differently in the past and known different amounts about Him, but God was not any more or less merciful. Every covenant has always applied in all of human history.
What's the fall?
One thing I've never quite understood is why God can't feel emotions. I suppose people think the feeling emotions means that He can feel one emotion at one moment and another emotion at another. But if He can love us, why can't He feel love for us? I also suppose people think that an emotion implies irrationality - but I think emotion and reason are inextricably linked in any action of a mind.
Immanence means He can be local in His feelings.
Maybe immutability and "changing one's mind" can be reconciled as two different ways of explaining the same thing, just at impassibility and "feeling" love, compassion, etc., are also reconcilable.
So the LORD changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people.
Jeremiah 26:19
"Did Hezekiah king of Judah and all Judah put him to death? Did he not fear the LORD and entreat the favor of the LORD, and the LORD changed His mind about the misfortune which He had pronounced against them? But we are committing a great evil against ourselves."
Numbers 23:19
"God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?
1 Samuel 15:29
"Also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind."
Isaiah 31:2
Yet He also is wise and will bring disaster And does not retract His words, But will arise against the house of evildoers And against the help of the workers of iniquity.
2 Corinthians 1:19
For the Son of God, Christ Jesus, who was preached among you by us--by me and Silvanus and Timothy--was not yes and no, but is yes in Him.
Jonah 4:2
He prayed to the LORD and said, "Please LORD, was not this what I said while I was still in my own country? Therefore in order to forestall this I fled to Tarshish, for I knew that You are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, and one who relents concerning calamity.
Exodus 32:12
"Why should the Egyptians speak, saying, 'With evil intent He brought them out to kill them in the mountains and to destroy them from the face of the earth'? Turn from Your burning anger and change Your mind about doing harm to Your people.
Amos 7:3
The LORD changed His mind about this. "It shall not be," said the LORD.
Amos 7:6
The LORD changed His mind about this. "This too shall not be," said the Lord GOD.
Jonah 3:9
"Who knows, God may turn and relent and withdraw His burning anger so that we will not perish."
Jonah 3:10
When God saw their deeds, that they turned from their wicked way, then God relented concerning the calamity which He had declared He would bring upon them. And He did not do it.
Jeremiah 18:8
if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it.
Jeremiah 26:3
'Perhaps they will listen and everyone will turn from his evil way, that I may repent of the calamity which I am planning to do to them because of the evil of their deeds.'
Jeremiah 26:13
"Now therefore amend your ways and your deeds and obey the voice of the LORD your God; and the LORD will change His mind about the misfortune which He has pronounced against you.
Jeremiah 42:10
'If you will indeed stay in this land, then I will build you up and not tear you down, and I will plant you and not uproot you; for I will relent concerning the calamity that I have inflicted on you.
2 Samuel 24:16
When the angel stretched out his hand toward Jerusalem to destroy it, the LORD relented from the calamity and said to the angel who destroyed the people, "It is enough! Now relax your hand!" And the angel of the LORD was by the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite.
Jeremiah 18:10
if it does evil in My sight by not obeying My voice, then I will think better of the good with which I had promised to bless it.
Ezekiel 7:22
'I will also turn My face from them, and they will profane My secret place; then robbers will enter and profane it.
Comments
That’s the position of most open theists. The version I most resonate with is likened to a chess match. Like a chess master, God knows all the possibilities, every choice we could make and the multiple contingencies that could stem from each. But like a chess master, he can’t know which choice his free creatures will make— but has a plan in place for how he will accomplish his ultimate purposes in each contingency
No.
You're both right. Minutiae were affected by prayer; wrought very mainly personal miracles at the odd rock concert level. But usually, 99.9% of the time, from even a hundred yards away, nobody would have noticed a thing. Society was barely affected initially. Only subversively for centuries.
John Wesley.
Well yes, that is true. I can't quite express what I mean.
Certainly in the NT there is the sense that one should pray for healing, but also (perhaps) that acceptance that the deity may not provide healing - and if he doesn't, that's not necessarily a sign of a lack of faith or whatever.
Which is perhaps suggestive of the idea that in some situations the deity was going to heal, but was waiting to be asked. And in others there is a "bigger picture" so healing isn't appropriate even if we desire it.
I was also contemplating the Lord's prayer. It certainly asks for things, notably daily bread. And yet it is noticeable that the things asked for are basic necessities and beyond that a changed attitude to others.
I dunno, maybe it isn't a real thing - it feels like it is to me even though I lack the vocabulary.
I'd say that Eutychus has it pretty spot on.
This prayer has 2 parts to it. The first three petitions are about God's name, God's kingdom and God will. They call attention to God's greatness. The next three petitions are about our food, our forgiveness and our holiness. They call attention to our human needs.
The 2 parts have a very different feel to them. The first feels majestic and transcendent. The second part feels mundane and commonplace. But there is a connection being expressed between the life of God on heaven and our human lives here on earth. It unites the big and the little, the glorious and the common. The spirituality of the Lord's Prayer is filled with eternity and and woven into ordinary life.
The Lord's Prayer instead of a creed? I've never heard that before.
According to Wikipedia (on the Apostles' Creed,) "The earlier text evolved from simpler texts based on Matthew 28:19, part of the Great Commission, and it has been argued that it was already in written form by the late 2nd century."
So the basis for the Creed was also given to the apostles by Christ.
Creeds really emerged as a result of disputes during the C4-5th and were more intended as being a safeguard against popular heresies. The Nicene Creed is a bit problematic but a new statement would never be agreed upon by all the churches. But the Lord's Prayer can always be shared at ecumenical services. As an expression of common faith it works much better than a Creed.
Although calling God 'Abba' Father was considered quite radical in C 1st Palestine.
The gospel narratives emphasise the Lordship of Christ. Jesus asks, 'Who do you say I am ?' And Peter's confession, 'You are the Christ,' marks the turning point of the story. And the climax is the response to the Risen Christ by Mary Magdalene, 'I have seen the Lord' and Doubting Thomas, 'My Lord and my God' (John 20: 18,28).
Pauls summary of the gospel is, 'If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him. From the dead, you will be saved' (Romans 10: 9).
In 156 AD the martyr Polycarp, a disciple of John was burned at the stake for refusing to offer incense to the Roman emperor. He was asked by the Proconsul to apostasise saying, 'Have respect for your old age, swear by the fortune of Caesar. Repent and say, 'Down with the Atheists!' Polycarp declared, '86 years I have served Him and He has done me no wrong. How can I blaspheme my King and my Saviour?'
It's interesting that the Christians were regarded as being atheists by the Roman authorities.
What somethings does He do then?
Further to the Lord's Prayer, its 2 part structure is mirrored in the Ten Commandments. The first ones set out our relationship towards God and the second ones set out our relationship towards other people. So perhaps Jesus was reflecting upon the meaning of the commandments when His disciples asked Him how they should pray.
Well you seem to believe he does nothing ever, with or without prayer. What would Rev'd John McGinley think?
Who prayed for the Flood? For the expulsion from Paradise? For the Babylonian Captivity? For the creation itself? Wesley has said some stupid things but this takes the biscuit.
To be fair, I think there must have been a context to Wesley saying this, probably that God doesn't answer the prayers of a non-believer. I myself personally wouldn't necessarily agree with that, because anyone should be able to pray - there isn't a qualifying exam you have to pass, for your prayers to be heard, so to speak.
I once heard of a soldier who refused to attend church because he had seen so much suffering in WW2. He talked to a bishop who asked him if he thought the war was the fault of God or of humans? The following week he returned and said to him that he had thought about this and he didn't blame God.
That's not to say that repentance, fasting, personal holiness etc. have no affect.
Snort. I need to remember that one.
Very much agree with that. Jesus does not seem a fan of "name it and claim it" theology." But he also seems to be teaching the disciples to pray big, bold, audacious prayers-- to ask big things of God with expectation.
I really like John's term for miracles-- "sign". That makes sense to me. Healing & miracles are not tricks, they're not wages we earn for good behavior or great faith or asking in the proper way. They are signs-- signs of the coming Kingdom. They point to the reality of God's presence and activity in the world. But because we live in an era where the Kingdom is both "now and not yet"-- where the Kingdom "of this world" is still present-- we have signs of the Kingdom of this world as well. We have unanswered prayer: sickness, alienation, suffering, persecution, violence and death that are not healed. Signs of "the Kingdom of this world"-- i.e. "the realities of this life." But we also have signs of the new Kingdom: reconciliation, healing, restoration. In a time when the Kingdom if "now and not yet" that is exactly what we should expect: to see signs of both Kingdoms. That should call us to pray more, not less. Prayer seems to be one of the "weapons of the Spirit" in which we engage this battle for the Kingdom.
Seem. The ironic root of of dogma. If He is then He is all there is. So He does everything. As only it can be done. Sufficiently. As the Talmudic El Shaddai would.
John and I have different narratives of God.
That sounds like a mixture of Pantheism and Judaism.
Sorry 'bout that. But I see no paradox between universes being closed systems once they're up and running and what precedes them (and pops up in them, incarnations and what not) being completely open. Just my lack of imagination I'm sure.
If you mean why don't I try believing prayer, believing what?
On what?
Well that's all right then.
No. It's fine by me. What would you call creation?
So what else does religion (look at its root) do?
Oooh. I'm being crept up on. Just felt moved! How frightfully Wesleyan.
This IS all your fault. Or Somebody's. I realise that when I say I take Pascal's wager, I really, really haven't. Taking it means invoking Jesus as writ and the Holy Spirit too. It hit me walking to work this morning. Where I am constantly bullied by my truly charming, disarming boss, who knows I love him. Paul's advice to slaves came to mind.
Sigh : ) so, I take a great Heraclitean loop of the wager : ) That's me. Can't stop smiling. Uh OH! Not the 'holy laughter' AGAIN! That was a great day. Oh dear!
LOL!
On what I just said previously.
"Holy laughter?" Yes, I've heard about that - just make sure there's someone to help you when you fall down.
It's a long time since I've passed on that kind of anointing
Link; the last part is attributed to Malcolm Muggeridge by Os Guinness. Good stuff about fools there, too. The Gravedigger File is easily one of the ten Christian books that have had the most influence on me.
What, prayers are heard? Okayyyyyyyy. They affect God? Does He effect anything as a result?
Probably.
The Ninevites would beg to differ. The problems start when people think they can use God like a divine vending-machine where, so long as they get the formula right, they can get anything they want. We cannot tell God what to do, nor for that matter what He can't do.
Peter says and does some silly things, but where it really matters he gets it so right
That's even longer. And they encountered nothing material if they encountered anything at all. A myth about a man fulfilling their myths. We know what He can and can't, does and doesn't do in the material world. He tells us. By His inaction.
It sounds more like you are trying to tell Him.
Sigh.
He's telling us silent and clear.
And I'm telling it like I see, hear, read, touch, feel, think it. If I'm wrong, He can tell me.
I'm not quite sure why, if someone likes the idea of a God that listens to prayers and responds to them, why it is so terrible to believe that God already knows our prayers before they happen and makes one decision outside of time to respond to all of them. He does not change, but he still takes our prayers into account. Our prayers have results on what happens in the world (and in the afterlife, in my belief), but they do not change God.
I would take this one step further and say that God's relationship with humans has always been and will always be the same, before and after the fall and before and after the incarnation, life, passion, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ. Christ still saves us and doesn't just give us an example to follow, but He does so at all times, even going back to before His birth. People may have understood God differently in the past and known different amounts about Him, but God was not any more or less merciful. Every covenant has always applied in all of human history.
One thing I've never quite understood is why God can't feel emotions. I suppose people think the feeling emotions means that He can feel one emotion at one moment and another emotion at another. But if He can love us, why can't He feel love for us? I also suppose people think that an emotion implies irrationality - but I think emotion and reason are inextricably linked in any action of a mind.
Maybe immutability and "changing one's mind" can be reconciled as two different ways of explaining the same thing, just at impassibility and "feeling" love, compassion, etc., are also reconcilable.
Exodus 32:14
So the LORD changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people.
Jeremiah 26:19
"Did Hezekiah king of Judah and all Judah put him to death? Did he not fear the LORD and entreat the favor of the LORD, and the LORD changed His mind about the misfortune which He had pronounced against them? But we are committing a great evil against ourselves."
Numbers 23:19
"God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?
1 Samuel 15:29
"Also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind."
Isaiah 31:2
Yet He also is wise and will bring disaster And does not retract His words, But will arise against the house of evildoers And against the help of the workers of iniquity.
2 Corinthians 1:19
For the Son of God, Christ Jesus, who was preached among you by us--by me and Silvanus and Timothy--was not yes and no, but is yes in Him.
Jonah 4:2
He prayed to the LORD and said, "Please LORD, was not this what I said while I was still in my own country? Therefore in order to forestall this I fled to Tarshish, for I knew that You are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, and one who relents concerning calamity.
Exodus 32:12
"Why should the Egyptians speak, saying, 'With evil intent He brought them out to kill them in the mountains and to destroy them from the face of the earth'? Turn from Your burning anger and change Your mind about doing harm to Your people.
Amos 7:3
The LORD changed His mind about this. "It shall not be," said the LORD.
Amos 7:6
The LORD changed His mind about this. "This too shall not be," said the Lord GOD.
Jonah 3:9
"Who knows, God may turn and relent and withdraw His burning anger so that we will not perish."
Jonah 3:10
When God saw their deeds, that they turned from their wicked way, then God relented concerning the calamity which He had declared He would bring upon them. And He did not do it.
Jeremiah 18:8
if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it.
Jeremiah 26:3
'Perhaps they will listen and everyone will turn from his evil way, that I may repent of the calamity which I am planning to do to them because of the evil of their deeds.'
Jeremiah 26:13
"Now therefore amend your ways and your deeds and obey the voice of the LORD your God; and the LORD will change His mind about the misfortune which He has pronounced against you.
Jeremiah 42:10
'If you will indeed stay in this land, then I will build you up and not tear you down, and I will plant you and not uproot you; for I will relent concerning the calamity that I have inflicted on you.
2 Samuel 24:16
When the angel stretched out his hand toward Jerusalem to destroy it, the LORD relented from the calamity and said to the angel who destroyed the people, "It is enough! Now relax your hand!" And the angel of the LORD was by the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite.
Jeremiah 18:10
if it does evil in My sight by not obeying My voice, then I will think better of the good with which I had promised to bless it.
Ezekiel 7:22
'I will also turn My face from them, and they will profane My secret place; then robbers will enter and profane it.