As I stated earlier, my beef with most "Church theology" is that "they don't actually teach the entirety of the Bible. And I find the more a church "claims" they teach the Bible, most often times the less that church actually covers the whole Bible, but rather just vehemently focuses on the Scriptures that are important to them.". So welcome to post #1 of Why I Hate Church Theology.
Common Theological Statement Heard In Church: God doesn't change his mind.
The theory is that since God is perfect, and His will is perfect, then nothing needs to be changed.
But here's the problem. The Bible gives at least two examples of God changing his mind.
Exodus 32:14 So the LORD changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people.It LITERALLY says God changed his mind. Where are all the literalists now? Better yet, the story of Israel getting a king is another example of God changing his mind.
It is fairly clear that God didn't want Israel to have a king. He wanted to be their King. He wanted them set apart from other nations. Yet, we see in 1Samuel 8 that God relents and allows for a King after Israel demanded one.
1Sam 8:7 The LORD said to Samuel, "Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them.So not only do we have a literal statement that God changed his mind (Ex 32:14) and an example of God changing his mind (1Sam 8), but maybe best of all is Jesus himself.
...
1Sam 8:22 The LORD said to Samuel, "Listen to their voice and appoint them a king." So Samuel said to the men of Israel, "Go every man to his city."
Arguably Jesus knew God better than anyone - partially because as Christians we believe Jesus was in fact God incarnate (let's not debate this for now).
Sure God's answer to this prayer was no - and inevitably Jesus was killed on the cross. But it is clear enough to me that Jesus thought that God had the ability to change His mind.
Matthew 26:39 And He went a little beyond them, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will.If God was unable or unwilling to change His mind, surely Jesus would have known this and surely He wouldn't have wasted His last moments on earth praying for something that was not possible.
So what now? How do those who claim to be "biblically-based" come to the conclusion that God doesn't change his mind? Let's listen to this and see the circles that one has to jump through to hold the belief God doesn't change his mind.
Randy Pope - God Doesn't Change His Mind
Let's ignore the fact that the anthropomorphism argument is a poor principle to stand on given it is clear God has something to which we understand as a "mind." If He has a plan, He has what we would understand is a will, and a will needs a "mind." Let's also ignore that if we are created in His image, and we have a mind, then there is reason to believe God has a "mind." But lets take a closer look at what Randy does here (which is quite common).
He states that, "The Bible teaches that God is immutable (doesn't change)." Yet he doesn't actually respect the text enough to quote where it says that. He just assumes that is common held theology and doesn't have to actually quote the Bible. He then goes on to quote from Exodus 32 and tells us why the Scripture is wrong (ok, he would say why our interpretation is wrong, but really what He is saying is that this passage of Scripture isn't saying what it is obviously saying).
Had Randy not been so flippant he could have at least quoted from Malachi 3:6 where it is states
Malachi 3:6 For I, the LORD, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.So how does one balance what they read in Malachi (and elsewhere) with what we read in Exodus, 1Samuel and Matthew? Here's my best attempt (and open to others) at balancing both of these scriptures.
God in his character does not change. When God makes a commitment (which is what Malachi is referring to), he honors that commitment because breaking that would call into question His righteousness. But God most definitely changes his mind in His interaction with His people.
The best simple analogy I can think of is imagine for a second you have a dad who told you the family was going on vacation. He said we were going to Florida. But you and the rest of the kids want to go to Colorado. Through petition and communication (prayer if you will), he changed his mind and decided to go to Colorado. He still honored his commitment to vacation and to spending time with the family. But he was open to changing His plans. He still determined when vacation was, and if ultimately a vacation was taken. He still had the power to override and say nope, sorry folks, we are going to Florida. But he is at least open to change.
This doesn't mean that God always changes His mind, or even most often changes His mind. All this means is that God does in fact have the ability to change His mind - despite what church theology sometimes assumes we all believe.
To come to huge theological principles while ignoring the entirety of Scripture like Exodus 32, 1Samuel 8, and Matthew 26 is why I hate church theology.
DISCLAIMER: I am probably going to be using Randy Pope - Sr. Pastor of Perimeter Church in Johns Creek, GA as a "punching bag" with a lot of these posts. This is only because he is the Sr Pastor at my church. Out of everyone I have worked with and/or sat under in the Atlanta area (Hunt, Stanley, Youseff, etc...), in my opinion Randy is the best bible preacher in the area. Obviously I disagree with him on some interpretation, but I genuinely do respect the man and the church
Though I don't have precise facts at hand, we don't see a lot of this type of talk till the reformation, and even though it is held by a lot of Armenians either in expressed theology or more likely, through uninformed actions, I think it is a derivative of deterministic theology. God willed certain people to be saved, he chose the course of events, etc. This created an image of God, I think, that was to be worshiped as divine, but interaction with was probably not possible, and if it was, it was more to put our own thoughts straight than it was to influence his.
Its too bad we keep swinging the pendulum back and forth and cannot accept that some divine truths are much like quantum states, where the answer doesn't have to be A or B but can be both A and B, held in tension in our own hearts and minds to increase our faith in Him.
I mean this sincerely that what you have stated above has been one of the greatest finds of "depth" in my relationship with God over the years. Realizing that it isn't picking one scripture over the other - which is what is most commonly done in sermons and Bible study - but rather living in the tension of both and trying to figure out and process (sometimes over years) what it means. It is both frustrating and exhilarating.
I too think holding apparent biblical contradictions in tension is instrumental to this whole following Jesus thing. However, I do sometimes think the bible is contradictory... and I occasionally subscribe to the "Bible as Community Library" view in place of the mainstream "Bible as Constitution" view. I'm not convinced that our sacred text needs to be 100% internally consistent, but I do think that the authors of our book do need to be deeply connected to the same source.
I could be wrong though...
Either way we shouldn't do too much tap dancing around verses like "vayinahem haelohim el-haraah" or "and God repented of the evil..." (Jonah 3:10). We should deal with these texts honestly.
Or possibly it's all just a bunch of made-up nonsense and you guys are whistling in the dark.
But that's crazy, right?
You JUST had to bring in the Hebrew :) Dr. Yarchin would be proud. At least I THINK he would be proud, I never actually took anything from him because I didn't buy the hype :)
Thanks for the Jonah reference though. I didn't know that one. Guess I should have bought the hype and then I would have had another example.
It's good to have your insight Chris. I hope you are doing well.
Not crazy. Just not right ;)
Ding ding ding. We have a winner.
Andy, this is on one level a conflict between the "God of the Bible" and the "God of the Philosopher". Early Christian theologians like Augustine adopted Greek philosophical notions of the likes of Aristotle and Plato and tried to reconcile them with the Bible. Bible has, even when at most transcendental, a personal god. Aristotle and Plato see god as a force, principle, primal mover who is not moved etc. I cannot see how a personal god can ever be said to be immutable and unchangeable. On the other hand, I cannot see how the impersonal "primal mover" even deserves to be called god. But there definitely is much conflict here and it has produced what you call "Biblical theology" over the centuries.
On the other hand, the "God of the Bible" is not so well defined either. Some authors see him more anthropomorphic than others, who prefer their god to be transcendent.
It's really a hot mess by the end, and one way is to allegorize portions of the Bible one does not agree with, while still maintaining infallibility. I find that approach to be wanting, as I stated in the other blog.
You are not quoting it, but I've always liked Numbers 23:19 here:
God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
Sorry, but pseudo quantum theory mumbo jumbo won't resolve the law of non-contradiction. I am surprised to see a Christian abuse quantum theory. It's usually New Agers who do it. :p
Have you considered that rather than some mystical, pseudo-scientific "Schrödinger Bible verse", what we really have here is two verses that seem contradictory just because they were written by two different people having different opinions and agendas. I.e. have you considered the possibility that portions of the Bible are really contradictory both with each other and with what we know about the world from science.
For example, Jesus can't have been crucified both on Passover and the Day of Preparation. There is no "Schrödinger Jesus" that exists in a superposition of Jesus suffering these two fates until we open some box and look inside.
There is also no "Schrödinger Earth History" where angiosperms exist in superposition of coming on the scene either before or after sea animals. All this is pretty preposterous.
Do nurse that thought. It's a fruitful alley to walk down.
There is an even more ominous implication to this idea of a changeable God: if he has done it in the past he may do so in the future as well. This means that he may re-consider all the facts and decide to send all the righteous (including our celibate friends) to everlasting torment, while welcoming the depraved and lecherous such as myself into his heavenly abode.
Very tricky this God.
All this speculation, all this tortuous theology...its so unnecessary. Just let go of God and suddenly the world (not to mention the Bible) will make a hell of a lot more sense.
Even though we obviously disagree I think we need to say a few words of praise for Andy, for his integrity and his intellectual honesty in pursuit of truth. Everyone commenting here- even that guy whose avatar is a picture of him eating his own hand- everyone has contributed interesting and thoughtful posts. Thanks to all. Let's keep this going.
Open Theism. When God decided to not just create, but create the epitome of creation, the human being, and gave them free will - at that moment he willfully limited his power. It doesn't mean that one day he doesn't "retake" it. It doesn't mean that he has no power. It just means that in order to give us free will, something had to give, and localized-omnipotence was that.
I didn't quote because I didn't know it :) Good passage. I actually like it because when discussing this topic with other people, I often get, "well maybe God just SAID he was going to destroy everybody, but really never had any intention to do so." My response, "yes, I very much would rather accuse God of being a liar, than possibly rethink my immutable theological stance." No seriously. That's the better theology. God is a liar. All that to say, I still can see the Numbers passage to fit in the idea that God's character does not change. (See below)
PS Why must you and Erik insist on quoting from the King James Version of the Bible. Go with NASB or NRSV - but pretty much any biblical scholar will agree that the KJV has so many translation errors (due to it being translated in the 1500s) that it is quite inaccurate in places.
Ohh I agree whole-heartedly. It for sure had different writers, with different agendas. But I still think that is the beauty of the Bible - not a dilution.
I'd argue differently - it's the only type of God worth loving. It's akin to the analogy of a father who listens to his kids.
I think this goes to the idea that God's character does not change. Again, that is how I reconcile the Malachi-3-type passages with the Exodus-32-type passages. God did change his mind in that he initially only had a covenant with the Jews, and then allowed Gentiles to be apart of the kingdom. But God's character - being one of fairness - did not change, and because of this Jesus went to hell to give those who hadn't had an opportunity in the past to be saved, an opportunity to be saved, just like those in the future would receive (1Peter 3:18-22).
Ultimately sure, there is a level of faith and trust in a relationship with God. And just like any relationship of trust, there is a vulnerability. But just like a marriage that over times learns trust more than focusing on the vulnerability, so too does society have reason to trust God.
Except for its existence.
Another post is coming soon.
Are you an open theist Andy? I appreciate the basic premise about qualities such as immutability being antithetical to personhood. However, I am a but perplexed as open theism denies Biblical infallibility. For example, the whole idea of predictive prophecy is meaningless under open theism.
To what extent human beings have free will has been debated by philosophers for centuries . But indeed, if humans indeed posses counter-causal free will you would be right.
What do you mean "retake"? Would that mean we lose the free will we have now? And if so, will the poor bastards who spend eternity in Heaven be just robots programmed to eternally praise His faceless Godhead?
And maybe God really knew where Adam and Eve were but only made as if he was looking for them. ;)
KJV is actually a pretty good translation (unlike NIV or God forbid, NLT) but suffers from relatively poor source manuscripts that were available then.
That said, the reason I often quote from it is language. You just can't find "powers that be", "through glass darkly" or even "every one that pisseth against the wall" in the modern translations.
What is needed of course is a translation that uses modern methodology and sources but uses KJV language. Opposite of what they did with NKJV if you will.
It is no problem for one that sees the Bible as I do, but if you take the Bible as any sort of divine revelation I do not see how you can get away from dilution.
But what is this faith and trust based on. What you say here is basically C.S. Lewis' argument in "On Obstinacy in Belief" which I frankly do not buy. With a marriage the faith and trust I have in my (hypothetical) wife is based on direct interactions with that person over a long period of time. With God what you have is an old book and vague feelings of connectedness. Lewis, and you, draw an analogy between real personal relationships and a purported personal relationship with God. But I think the latter is a fallacy even if God should exist as it is, in the mind of believers, based on so much less than real relationships are, although it should be based on more.
Please elaborate exactly what about our world's existence necessitates God. Philosophically, I do not see any problem with a self-contained naturalistic world, and scientifically, while we do not know how our universe came to be, there are many pieces of experimental evidence (very small or zero total energy in the universe for example) and theoretical frameworks (M-theory which postulates an infinite number of universes that came into being all the time without divine intervention) that do away with many arguments for God's existence such as creation ex-nihilo argument or the fine tuning argument.
By the way, I am still curious why you think the NT case for a virgin birth is so overwhelming. I find even the case as outlined in Matthew and Luke quite thin, as I have expressed in my comment to the previous blog post. Could you please elaborate?
How does it deny Biblical infallibility? Where does it say that God is actively practicing omnipotence?
I do not make projections on what heaven is like. I think people should have learned their lesson when they made such huge projections on what the Messiah would look like and many missed it because it didn't fit their projections. The Bible and Jesus speak relatively little about Heaven, so therefore, I will do the same.
As for how this works. My point goes back to the vacationing-father example. God chooses to relent some of his power at this time to give us free will, but it doesn't mean that he can't at any point take it back. As for the extent and level of Him taking it back, I do not pretend to speak for God and freely admit I don't know. All I know is that in the end God wins (aka the whole point and only real point of Revelation)
And evidence of a designer.
This is where you and I (and Erik) just disagree. I have no problem with evolution. I have no problem with the Big Bang or anything else. But there is nothing in this world (key word: this world) that doesn't have a cause before effect, and doesn't have a designer. So why am I to believe that the greatest creation of them all, life, doesn't have a designer or an initial cause.
There are particles and effects at the quantum level which have no antecedent cause. I am not sure how you are using the term 'designer'. If an intelligent being designed this life then he did it very poorly. The 'designer' is either incompetent or malevolent. I actually am more inclined to believe the latter. There is no reason why God can't be evil. Perhaps he is a sadist-God. Why not? Why does he have to be a benevolent being? I think of a child abused by a parent. To the child the parent seems like a god, yet he inflicts terrible abuse. So who is to say we are not the children of an abusive Father. Makes more sense this way.
But if we evolved then this garden of Eden story is just a myth (I know that's a pretty radical statement, given all the incontrovertible evidence of a book of Semitic folklore) and no fall means no need for redemption. Am I right or am I right?
The title of your this blog entry, really got my attention and so I read through it and read some of the responses to your blog. I'm not going address the content of the blog or the responses to it, other than to say that sometimes, much "deep thinking" and debate about things are just a waste of time. We all have opinions and thats fine, but some things are just a waste of time to debate about. Especially when it actually come to the living out of the faith we supposedly say we have. I'm a preacher and graduated from Seminary and find a lot so called "theological" discussions to be a waste of time. Especially when those who do engage in such "discussions", I've found most of the time their life is absent of the REAL substance of Christianity.
That aside, I honestly do have an issue with the statement and your intent when you wrote in your disclaimer:
"DISCLAIMER: I am probably going to be using Randy Pope - Sr. Pastor of Perimeter Church in Johns Creek, GA as a "punching bag" with a lot of these posts. This is only because he is the Sr Pastor at my church. Out of everyone I have worked with and/or sat under in the Atlanta area (Hunt, Stanley, Youseff, etc...), in my opinion Randy is the best bible preacher in the area. Obviously I disagree with him on some interpretation, but I genuinely do respect the man and the church"
I am particularly sensitive to this because I serve in a church where some disgruntled people have left and began writing all kinds of stuff on blogs and websites, saying things about other preachers who I know well. Things that are untrue and completely ridiculous. Criticizing them about everything they do, how they preach, what they teach, and on and on, and on. Trying to tear them down and our church. That's just not right.
Now, I have no doubt that your intent is perfectly harmless. At the same time, I would sincerely reconsider making your Sr. Pastor and someone you say you respect a "punching bag" for your blog posts. The whole thing make me uneasy in light that preachers ought to be respected, especially since their calling (if they are true preachers & not charlatans) comes from God.
God Bless you Andy
Thinking is so hard. Let's just praise the Lord instead.
Change his plans. Like when something happens that He didn't see coming.
Whoops- change of plan here folks- these folks ate from my trees, and wow, never would've imagined them doing that- but sorry it's going to be death and suffering from here on out.
(sic)
sounds like hell to me.
Don't hold your breath dude. For behold, he comes slowly. or not at all.
I stumbled onto your blog when I was going through Google looking for ideas that people had relating to God's ideas relating to the purpose of the Church. The various entries are very interesting. Some go farther in most every direction from where I am. Does that put me in the middle. Those who know me do not put me there. The common factor that you all have, that I believe that I share with you is that the 'church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Pharisees' who urge you to come on command and 'drink the cool aid' is not what we are looking for. I have some pretty developed thoughts regarding this, and I will share them with you, if you would like.
Ken Daniel (the fool upon the hill)
this comment was a long time coming, I know.
I didn't mean omnipotence, but omniscience. The Bible probably does claim omnipotence somewhere (and "God Almighty" is not it, as it is a mistranslation of "El Shaddai" or "God of the Mountain") but I am loathe to look for it now. What I meant was claims to predictive prophecy which are incompatible with open theism. And if you deny the Bible has genuine predictive prophecy you abandon Biblical infallibility.
I do find it very curious that the supposed "Messiah" does not fulfill hardly any qualifications for the Messiah. The other messianic pretenders like Judah the Galilean, the Egyptian or Simon bar Kochba at least tried to kick the Romans out, which is the most important qualification to be the Messiah (and not just a very naughty boy). I think rather than "the Jews" being blind to recognize the Messiah, that rather Jesus wasn't much of a messianic candidate.
It's like saying you are a surgeon, fail to meet the accepted qualifications for what a surgeon is supposed to do, then blame the rest of us for not recognizing you as a surgeon because you don't "fit our projections". Weird sort of retrofitting, that.
Of course, it could all be just wishful thinking. It certainly has an air of a revenge phantasy. After all, it was purportedly written by someone who was in exile. It almost certainly was written during the reign of Domitian during which Christians were prosecuted. Speaking of "vacationing father", it sounds almost childish: "Wait till my daddy gets here. You'll all be sorry"
I do not see any, sorry. Evolution showed us that no designer is needed for the complexity evident in biological systems. Cosmology and physics teaches us that no creator is needed for the universe at large.
There go the two biggest reasons why God had been seen as necessary. Creation and design. The God of the Gaps is disappearing like the Cheshire Cat.
There are plenty of things in this world that do not have a designer. Actually, the vast majority of things don't.
As to the causality argument, that is more difficult. It surely is intuitively true. But so does Newtonian mechanics, which breaks down for the realm of things that are outside our normal everyday experience, like things that are very heavy and very small (both of them apply to early universe!).
But it does not apply to quantum events. A uranium atom decays due to no preceding cause. And Big Bang was a quantum event, which means that our common sense ideas like causality no longer apply.
In fact, Big Bang is where time begins; there is no time before the Big Bang. And causality being meaningless is one of the hallmarks of breakdown of time itself.
I ran into this on a "free will" search. I most recently have found the explanations of free will interesting. I used to believe them contradictory to His plan. But the general explaination of allowing us to follow our path to Him is an interesting pursuit. Some would call it a convienient explanation.
The element of this that I cannot shake is coincidence. There are times when disconnected events lead you to a path that you seem meant to follow. The thought that this is purely accidental seemas lacking. The idea of a subtle guide to allow you to make and remake your life decisions along your own path to find Him is interesting; and I believe on subject.
Thanks, I will be reading.
Yes, His hand was subtly guiding those Jews to the gas chambers.
He was also subtly guiding those hijackers as they lived their 'purpose-driven' lives.
Praise the Lord.
That's the problem.
Try us.
Oh, we have facts. Actual scientific facts. It is creationists that have to make up and twist things to make them conform to their mythologies.
Nonsense does not get truer when written in all caps. Darwinian evolution is one of the most securely established scientific theories ever. While there are, like in any active branch of science, still uncertainties and disagreements over details and mechanisms, the two pillars of common descent and inheritance with modifications through natural selection are as firmly established as anything in science.
So it is your camp which has no facts to back them up, evidenced (as Erik also observed) in your unwillingness to advance any actual arguments, never advancing beyond "you are wrong because you are lost sheep". No sir, I am not a mindless sheep at all. I prefer to think for myself.
So your solution is to stop thinking and adopt an unthinking blind faith? And you accuse us of talking nonsense?
The irony is strong with this one!
What a bunch of non-sequiturs. If morning may not come for any of us, why should I abandon reason and follow Jesus like a good sheep? I think there is a logical step or two missing here.
Faith is belief in something you can not see. Those who believe in Christ have generations who have believed ahead of them to confirm their beliefs. Those who believe in the theory of evolution have faith too. However, their faith leads them away from an eternity with God. All of us are living eternal lives right now, just trapped in bodies that breathe on earth. When the bodies die, the spirit goes somewhere and I am so thankful for the price Christ paid for me on the cross for I know I am going home. I truly could care less about whether God changes His mind as shared in Scripture. All that truly matters is that the price for my sin was paid when Christ died on the cross and rose again to ascend into Heaven to sit at the right hand of God.
(And to all of those who believe the Theory of Evolution, check out the Institution for Creation Research - they have some amazing scientific evidence that debunks the idea that our ancestors came from primordial soup.)
Found Alan's FB because "Leo" gave me a copy of "Mega-Church Pastor."
Have to comment on your thought, although as an EX-Pastor but not among the elite, I still have a few thoughts left.
Why should God change anything about Himself, even His mind?
He is perfect in all His ways, He is never changing, the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. It is us who are to change! Acquiring the mind of Christ, maturing into His image, moving from glory to glory.
Why should He move backwards to fulfill our desires, wishes or wants? As Paul was so aptly told: "My Grace is sufficient for thee."
The Gospel is the Good News. Good News that I can change and be like Him, no longer bound by sin but set free from the laws of sin and death, no matter the decisions I struggle to make or the stupidity of my carnal mind.
Just a personal thought since God has yet to write on my bedroom wall and give me the wisdom to "know-it-all! ini, mene, upharsan. Probably misspelled since my mind is constantly changing and forgetting.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1019.htm
Well, I am sorry you feel that way; however it does not distract from the truth. For evolution to be turth, it would have to defy completely all generally accepted scientific absolutes. Take the human eye (or for that matter the eye of any creature on earth) - it is so complicated that statisically the odds say it should not exist and yet it does. I believe it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in God.
The fact that Jesus prayed to the Father to not have to undergo the passion and death on the cross,tells me that as a human Jesus must have had doubts about His own divinity.And of course if he had no doubts then how could he truly suffer? Even physical agony,if you are certain that it is temporary and you will survive [by going to heaven or being resurrected] ,is not the the same as suffering knowing your pain will simply lead to death and annihilation..The Incarnation necessitates that Jesus, in order to partake of our humanity and suffer as humans do must have had doubts about who He was and the prayer in the garden shows us his full humanity.It is not about God's changeability but about Jesus' humanity.
God knows everything and has no need to change His mind.He knows the "past,present and future" and our deepest thoughts.His" time" is not our time.What appears as change to us is His unfolding of Hmself and revealing of His will for us in salvation history culminating with the Jesus of the Semon on the Mount.