Post by Josh on Jan 29, 2007 17:11:32 GMT -8
Originally posted 10/18/06:
What follows is a summary of a teaching Douglas gave last year that dealt with the question of whether God changes His mind:
Douglas focused pretty heavily on the potential conundrum in this passage (the Golden Calf Episode in Exodus) regarding whether God changed His mind and the almost scandalous fact that Moses bargained with God over the impending destruction of the Israelites. This passage harkens back to earlier Biblical episodes where we are told God regretted something (the Flood story) or where God negotiated with a mere mortal (Abraham over the fate of Lot at Sodom).
Douglas then juxtaposed the idea of God 'changing his mind' or 'negotiating with humans' with verses in Scripture emphasizing the immutability of God (that God is said to be changeless) and the Sovreignty and Foreknowledge of God.
He further suggested (quite effectively) that although there is a lot of common ground between Greek Platonic thought and Christianity (which, I added, are evident in Paul's epistles as well as John's gospel) , there are some subtle but undesirable tendancies in Platonic thought as well- namely that God was/ can be perceived as so outside the realm of physicality (the particulars) that He really can't or doesn't have much inter-relational activity with humans. This line of thinking leads one to the idea, for example, that prayer is pretty much useless. If God doesn't condescend to our level, if everything is set in stone apart from our involvement, then what's the point of prayer? Passages like this one, where Moses seems to 'change God's mind' just must be deceptive- God musn't really have meant Moses to take Him seriously.
A reaction against this Neo-Platonic deism, which is equally as questionable, though, is Open Theism, which sees God, as well as man, as unable to know or control the future, as trapped with the limitations of time Himself. Douglas pointed out how both extremes on this paradox can lead us into theological difficulties.
In summation, he showed us how passages like these help us affirm an important paradox: that God is at once sovereign yet condescends to interact with us in a very real way. Our prayer does in some way affect Him. Though Sovreign in every way, he is not aloof- He interacts in the most intimate way with us- even involving some give and take, so to speak.
Hopefully that did it justice, Douglas.
What follows is a summary of a teaching Douglas gave last year that dealt with the question of whether God changes His mind:
Douglas focused pretty heavily on the potential conundrum in this passage (the Golden Calf Episode in Exodus) regarding whether God changed His mind and the almost scandalous fact that Moses bargained with God over the impending destruction of the Israelites. This passage harkens back to earlier Biblical episodes where we are told God regretted something (the Flood story) or where God negotiated with a mere mortal (Abraham over the fate of Lot at Sodom).
Douglas then juxtaposed the idea of God 'changing his mind' or 'negotiating with humans' with verses in Scripture emphasizing the immutability of God (that God is said to be changeless) and the Sovreignty and Foreknowledge of God.
He further suggested (quite effectively) that although there is a lot of common ground between Greek Platonic thought and Christianity (which, I added, are evident in Paul's epistles as well as John's gospel) , there are some subtle but undesirable tendancies in Platonic thought as well- namely that God was/ can be perceived as so outside the realm of physicality (the particulars) that He really can't or doesn't have much inter-relational activity with humans. This line of thinking leads one to the idea, for example, that prayer is pretty much useless. If God doesn't condescend to our level, if everything is set in stone apart from our involvement, then what's the point of prayer? Passages like this one, where Moses seems to 'change God's mind' just must be deceptive- God musn't really have meant Moses to take Him seriously.
A reaction against this Neo-Platonic deism, which is equally as questionable, though, is Open Theism, which sees God, as well as man, as unable to know or control the future, as trapped with the limitations of time Himself. Douglas pointed out how both extremes on this paradox can lead us into theological difficulties.
In summation, he showed us how passages like these help us affirm an important paradox: that God is at once sovereign yet condescends to interact with us in a very real way. Our prayer does in some way affect Him. Though Sovreign in every way, he is not aloof- He interacts in the most intimate way with us- even involving some give and take, so to speak.
Hopefully that did it justice, Douglas.