Cheapham,

I still say that God did not abandon his covenant in Judges. I reference Deuteronomy 28:25-35, for instance. Here God promises to deliver Israel over to invaders for their disobedience. Now in its fuller context, it ultimately is pointing to 722 BC and 586 BC, but that doesn't mean what happens in Judges is not part of what Yahweh Elohim is speaking of. Israel still disobeyed, God brought foreign invaders upon them to oppress them and enslave them. In Judges, we have God enacting the curses of Deuteronomy as was agreed upon in the covenant that God made with Israel. The cycle we see in the book of Judges has been called the Deuteronomic cycle for this very reason.

In Jeremiah, God speaks of giving Israel and Judah a certificate of divorce for her harlotry. Here he sends Israel away with a certificate of divorce (Jeremiah 3:8) and Judah sees this and prostitutes herself out to other gods. This is the only place that I have seen a complete breech by God in the covenant, or put differently, this is the only place that I see God leaving the covenant he instituted with is people. But even in Jeremiah he promises to take his unfaithful wife back if she will sincerely return to him. But here is the only place that I see God indicating he has left his covenant with his people.


JR,
Actually I think this adhering to the covenantal curses speaks not of Yahweh's mercy or justice as much as it speaks to his unwavering allegiance to demonstrate that he is faithful in spite of our unfaithfulness. He promised to pour out justice upon those who do not obey the conditions of the covenant and mercy upon the obedient. He honored his word. And, especially in light of Exodus 32-34 and Ezekiel 36:22ff, God is acting to honor his name and to preserve its holiness and honor. God swore by his name to honor the covenant and it is his name that is at stake, the name that he made for himself in Egypt in his triumph over Pharaoh. God will do what it takes to see to it that his name is sanctified and hallowed over all creation and in all creation. Exodus 34:6-7 really spells out how God defines the name of Yahweh, and it includes his faithfulness, mercy and justice. God always acts in accordance with what it means to be Yahweh. This is the heart of Moses praying in Exodus 33:12-17 where it is for the sake of the name of Yahweh that he pleads with God to not abandon Israel to just some angel but to come with them into the promised land.

Also, along the lines of God changing his mind in the OT. God declares in Isaiah 40-49 many times over that what he declares to happen happens, and that he has declared the beginning, the end, and everything in between. Hence the judgments and the salvation were all decreed by God in the more immediate Isaiah context. But I don't think that Isaiah, and God through Isaiah, is limiting these statements to just that particular context. I think this a universal statement by God about how He operates (cf. Ephesians 1:11). But what I think we see in God repenting of a particular course of action (i.e. God repenting of making Saul king after his sin) is God's response to that particular situation in time. I don't think that Saul's sin caught God unawares if he is the one who declares all things from beginning to end and, as Jesus said in Matthew 10:29 to bolster the confidence of the twelve before their mission trip, "Aren’t two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them falls to the ground apart from your Father’s will." It was by the will of God that the sparrow fell to the ground. God isn't going in one direction, then someone messed up the plan he had so God goes to plan B. God already knew it was going to happen because he decreed it to be so. But when it happens, God shows his reaction to the event. That is how I understand this topic. Feel free to disagree with me. But it makes sense the most sense in my mind out of the whole of Scripture where God is said to decree all things but yet at the same time we see him reacting to certain situations by changing his mind.

Hank,

By my reading of Judges 10:10-16, God actually did abandon the covenant, yet changed his mind very shortly after. God said, "I will deliver you no more," enacting his justice. Yet, his mercy ultimately prevailed as "he could no longer bear to see Israel suffer." Of course, it's a matter of interpretation: God could have just been using hyperbole...or, he actually made the conscious decision to no longer uphold the covenant.


It's interesting to note, as far as I know, that this is the only time that God appears to actually decide to no longer fulfill the covenant (in his own words). Israel has been spiraling downward from the outset of the book of Judges, and ends up actually causing a schism in the covenant. They appeared even to God to no longer be redeemable. Yet, God ultimately gives them another shot. And the next event, the next story that immediately follows this break, is the rather horrific story of Jephthah and his daughter. I find that interesting to say the least.

Interesting that this distinction is being brought up.  I was listening to a podcast from some Lutheran seminary and they were stressing that while God does interact and make choices throughout time, this is not what immutability is talking about.  Instead, it is talking about the character of God that is unchangeable.  So, we know, from places such as Malachi 3:6 that God's character does not change, but that speak naught about God changing throughout his interactions in time. 

Hank,

You're right, and I think this speaks more to YHWH's mercy than YHWH's justice.  YHWH would have been well within YHWH's rights not to adhere to the covenant, since Israel had already broken it (and has many times throughout the OT).

Cheapham is suggesting (following Tom, and I am in agreement) that in these instances where YHWH changes YHWH's mind (according to the texts, anyway), YHWH has (at least) two equally valid courses of action - act in accordance with YHWH's justice (and thus destroy all or part of Israel) or act in accordance with YHWH's mercy.  In some cases (Exodus 32, for instance), mercy wins.  In other cases (the cycle of Judges), justice wins (to be followed later by mercy).

In all cases, YHWH acts in accordance with YHWH's nature.  In no case is YHWH's character compromised.  I think a powerful lesson here is that we can intercede on behalf of our world (and ourselves) by appealing to God's mercy.  We all know at least in part what justice looks like (and the Revelation helps too).

Cheapham,

What is very interesting to me about the book of Judges is that God bringing in a foreign nation to conquer Israel is part of the curses that God promised Israel in the Mosaic covenant for their idolatry and infidelity. God never abandoned his end of the bargain. As long as their was obedience, there would be blessing. As long as there is disobedience, there will be curses and woes. But God did not abandon his covenant, he was faithful to the fullness of the covenant that included curses for disobedience.

Well, being that Open Theism isn't nearly the cohesive movement that Classical Theism has been, I don't know if you've accurately captured the Open Theist argument.

I, as more or less an Open Theist, just read the text as it is. God was rightfully pissed, was going to enact his justice, and then Moses interceded and persuaded God to change his mind. That's it. In this situation, God had every justification to "break" his promise, because the people were actively violating the conditional covenant already established by both parties previously in Exodus (Exodus 19:7-8). Yet, Moses made an appeal and God changed his mind.

I honestly don't see the problem, or the need to say that "something else is going on."

Of course no classical theist has taken God to be a liar, at least as far as I’ve known. Yet, they do maintain that God says one thing with the (unstated and undocumented) intention of doing another. You may not call that lying, but it is at the very least purposeful deception…which most other people would perhaps be inclined to call lying.

But my point is that the same thing is true on the open theistic position. Each position has to say something at odds with a surface reading of the text in order to avoid taking God to be lying, breaking a promise, or something of that nature. That means we can't use the surface reading of the text to derive theology, as if somehow one view is more natural based on the text. So something else must be going on. But the classical view has always insisted that something else is going on. It's just that open theists often don't realize that they also have to say something like that (as some do, but then they have to stop giving that argument).

I have no problem with the idea that two parties can make a covenant, one can break it, and the third loses all obligations created by the covenant toward the former covenant partner. I do have a problem with an outright promise to Judah that kings will come from his line, only for his line to die out in the wilderness.

Of course no classical theist has taken God to be a liar, at least as far as I've known. Yet, they do maintain that God says one thing with the (unstated and undocumented) intention of doing another. You may not call that lying, but it is at the very least purposeful deception...which most other people would perhaps be inclined to call lying.

And as for this whole "breaking promises" ordeal...Covenants are two way roads. It takes two parties to initiate one, and both parties are to fulfill obligations to the other. If one party stops fulfilling their end of the deal, then the other is perfectly able and allowed to view the covenant as null and void. Just read the book of Judges, it clearly illustrates how Israel repeatedly broke their covenant with God, so he (at least temporarily) didn't hold up his end of the bargain, Judges 10:6-16 perhaps best shows this. God actually abandoned Israel (in his own words no less). Yet, Israel began to uphold their end of the bargain again, and God's mercy ultimately shone through. Through it all, changes in situation bring about changes in God's treatment of his people. If his people break their promises, per the covenantal agreement, God seems willing to "break" his...even though he is no longer obliged to uphold them. People seem to forget the human element when it comes to God's promises.

First of all, I think my argument is being misrepresented here, both in the post and in the comments. I did not argue that open theism itself had these consequences. It doesn't. I think it's got plenty of problems, but this isn't one of them. What I argued is that a particular way of reading these passages as an argument for open theism has these consequences. That's a very different claim.

Also, my argument is not that it would be immoral for God to be just but moral for God to be merciful. God is both, and God knows when justice and mercy require particular actions. Sometimes we might rather God do the opposite. On the contrary, my argument is that in the particular case of Exodus 32-34 God would be breaking an outright promise that Moses, by presenting that promise, argues would not reflect well on God. He seems to think God has some sort of right to do it, but he also thinks it would be contrary to the very things God has revealed about himself in how he will relate to this people. The immoral action I had in mind would not be judging sinners. It would be breaking a promise to the people God promised to deliver and bring to the promised land. You have to take several passages in a way contrary to their usual interpretation to avoid this. If the argument is that classical theism is contrary to the surface presentation of how Exodus 32-34 goes, then it also loses the same feature in having to take Genesis 47-49 as if God isn't making promises to each tribe, most of whom would be wiped out in Exodus 32 but for Moses' intervention

Now the classic view has never taken God to be a liar. It has taken God to have presented a proposal that Moses was to refute as contrary to God's character. It is never taken as a lie, even if open theists interpret that view as a lie. The standard interpretation is to take God's proposal as a presentation of his current stance toward Israel, a stance that Moses foreknown intercession would change. There is indeed a change in God's stance toward Israel. First is a stance of wrath toward Israel and their deserving to be wiped out. Until atonement, which is specifically what Moses says he wants to do in exactly such terms, that is the honest way to describe God's attitude. But that doesn't mean God didn't know Moses would intercede to make atonement. That's the classical view, and it doesn't involve taking God to be lying.

As for immanence, the classical view has always insisted that God is immanent. That's why it is in fact true and not lying to report the events from the phenomenological perspective of human beings. God is immanent and active in the world. It's a gross misrepresentation of classical theism to think that God's transcendence implies a lack of immanence. The classical view insists on both.

Henry, who's teaching Greek this semester?

E.I. -

Could you explain more clearly to me how becoming human doesn't constitute a significant change in the nature of a person?  In fact, don't we as Christians make a pretty big deal out of the nature of Jesus being both divine AND human?  If the human was missing before the Incarnation, then isn't that a significant change?

AND, given that Hebrews talks about Jesus learning obedience through suffering, I am interested to know what biblical evidence you have to support the assertion that the Son was a "son" in the Trinity since before creation.

Why can't that be a role Jesus willingly assumed as he changed/grew to be Incarnated?

Cheapham/Matt,

You are correct, it is foundational and support does need to be given for it. I'll try to do that sometime this weekend. But first comes a Greek test and seeing our very own Casey and Brad this weekend. (Mini family reunion)

I'm still curious about this whole God being "outside of time" thing. People are demanding biblical support for God's "growth," yet I've seen no biblical support for God existing outside of time. It seems to be a fairly foundational assumption to many various points of view...

I agree with Jesse - this doesn't have to end up being a love vs. sovereignty argument. To deny one is to deny the God of the Bible.

That said, there is NO reason to assume that God's changin/growing in any way infers that God might somehow, for some reason, decide he does't want to save us. He is faithful to his promises - Just as James and Hebrews (cited earlier) said. God's faithfulness to his covenant promises is NOT the question here. Changing/growth does NOT have to be bad, or even a movement from bad to good.

As in Jesse's story, the storyteller enters the story - which implies that He comes to understand the plight of those within the narrative. In the incarnation, Jesus does this - He is able to sympathize with our weakeness b/c he was tempted just like us (not because he stood aloof in heaven). His incarnation brought about an important experience for Him that helped him related to and understand the situation of tempted, sinful people. NOW he can sympathize with our weakness. Where as before he could not experientially understand, now he can. Sounds a lot like change/growth to me - He grows in His understanding of us. He was good and just and loving before the incarnation, he is good and just and loving after the incarnation. We can still trust his promises, but NOW he can sympathize with our weaknesses.

All that: plus texts that speak of Jesus learning obedience through suffering....that may be a topic for another time.

oops... cutting and pasting lead to messing up... um... I will assume you can skip the accidentally duplicated part. Sorry!

Why can't God be both immutable and passionate - both removed and intimately present - both in control and relinquishing control - both outside of time and inside of time?

I think that this issue really arises from the problem of evil in the world: if God all knowing, and created the world, and is in complete control then it is very difficult to not hold him responsible for the evil in the world.

Some of us want to believe that God is all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good, and in control. (Maybe these are incompatible.) How do we read the Bible and synthesize these ideas. God is evidently passionate. Hosea 11 speaks of him being angry and turning that anger away, "How can I give you up, Ephraim? How can I hand you over, Israel?... My heart is changed within me; my compassion is aroused. I will not carry out my fierce anger, nor will I turn devastate Ephraim. For I am God, and not man - the Holy One among you. I will not come in wrath."

I think this conversation is also connected to the conversation on God's primary concern: revealing his glory, love, or something else. The nature of love is one of self-sacrifice - relinquishing control in order to allow the other to have control (Free will); relinquishing anger in order to preserve; relinquishing position (glory?) in order to serve and love (Phil 2:5-11).

Speaking of analogies (the topic of another post), is the kingdom of God like this:
Once there was a storyteller and everything he spoke came to be. The characters became real and the stories were lived and Why can't God be both immutable and passionate - both removed and intimately present - both in control and relinquishing control - both outside of time and inside of time?

I think that this issue really arises from the problem of evil in the world: if God all knowing, and created the world, and is in complete control then it is very difficult to not hold him responsible for the evil in the world.

Some of us want to believe that God is all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good, and in control. How do we read the Bible and synthesize these ideas. God is evidently passionate. Hosea 11 speaks of him being angry and turning that anger away, "How can I give you up, Ephraim? How can I hand you over, Israel?... My heart is changed within me; my compassion is aroused. I will not carry out my fierce anger, nor will I turn devastate Ephraim. For I am God, and not man - the Holy One among you. I will not come in wrath."

I think this conversation is also connected to the conversation on God's primary concern: revealing his glory, love, or something else. The nature of love is one of self-sacrifice - relinquishing control in order to allow the other to have control (Free will); relinquishing anger in order to preserve; relinquishing position (glory?) in order to serve and love (Phil 2:5-11).

Speaking of analogies (the topic of another post), is the kingdom of God like this:
Once there was a Storyteller and everything he spoke came to be. The characters became real and the stories were lived and existed.

One day the Storyteller chose to tell a story unlike any other story: he would enter this story, his characters would be objects of love and devotion, he would reveal himself to all his characters for all time, and he would make his characters in his own image: capable of telling their own stories, of telling the Storyteller out of their own stories.

The Storyteller was a master storyteller and could see the end of the story before the beginning. He saw the destruction that would occur. He saw the way that his characters would speak darkness into existence. He saw that they would corrupt that which was good and beautiful and excellent. He also saw a way to redeem all things; a way to set everything right.

The Storyteller had a choice: should he speak such a reality or not. If he did not speak the story, then the characters would never exist. They would never breathe. The beauty and majesty would never exist. Being good, and excellent, he wanted the characters to live and so he spoke, they came to be, and things were as he saw. But, he went about the work of redeeming things. He even called and equipped a group of characters to be part of the redemptive work, because he loved them so much.

As with all analogies, this one falls short in many ways. But, I do not think that God being passionate and existing outside of time are incompatible with each other. Storytellers can love their characters, be heart broken by the decisions that they make, etc. I do think that because the nature of Love is one of self-sacrifice, that God relinquishes power and control and gives it to his creatures. He is a law abider, so that means we reap what we sow... But, he redeems all things, reveals himself, and turns from his anger (Jesus and the cross being the central picture of this).

I didn't mean after God. I meant after the return of Christ, time ceases to be useful. I was thinking existentially, and not communicating the truth of what I meant. So, again, I meant after the return of Christ, not after God. (we don't need another sixty posts of nitpicking!)

I think the answer to the question of immutability lays beyond the concepts of God 'changing His mind' or 'Acting in a different way than his stated intentions', primarily because of the fact that God's intentions were always within the character of God--holiness, sovereignty, LOVE, mercy, grace, convenantal love and relationship....

However, not to be too much of a drag, but, to bring it back to the question of Open Theism considering God evil, I think that this statement over plays the point of view. Open Theists (from what I understand) do not intend to over-inflate the importance of man in these interactions. Rather, they want to show that God is a relational God, and operates in a relational way with creation. There isn't any question of this, and I believe that all Christians, of whatever stream, could agree here.

However, what I believe is the major downfall of Open Theism, is that it seeks to replace a set of propositions, which has created a non-relational systematic theology, NOT with a structure of relational truths or evidence examining, but rather, with more propositions. In example, God acted in a different way than stated in reference to the people of Israel after Moses intereceded, therefore either God is a acting in deception, knowing he wouldn't do that, or God is changeable, and non-transcendant.

I think there is a third way, and I believe it lies within looking at Intention. I believe that we can see that God is both transcendant in nature, and relational in nature. This gives us what I call the iceberg--God must enter into time to interact with creation. Best example? Incarnation. And even if God enters into every consecutive moment in time (imminence), God is still entering time, because before God, I believe, there was no time, and after God, time ceases to be useful (eternity).

Therefore, I believe that we must continue to seek out the third way, where we are continually refining both of these viewpoints, and adding more information. That is learning.

JR,

More Thoughts on Incarnation
God is a spirit (John 4:24). By the incarnation, God didn't change. The son remained the son (a child is born. A son is given ). The trinity - God remained the same.

But it gets better: Jesus asks: "My God, my God, Why have you forsaken me?"...now this one... this one did change something. Ravi Zacharias says that the relationship between the father and son was a bit disturbed. As if the father turned his back on the son while he suffered for the sins of the world... Yet, the nature of God remained intact.

Man - this is great stuff. Making me think...

Looking forward to some more thoughts.

p.s. I called Augustine "St." because that's what most people call him. Plus, I really like the guy! We should start a thread on him.

It seems to me that the OT provides us with numerous texts that imply God changes... questioning the man and woman in Eden (Genesis 3), regretting that he made humanity (Genesis 6), the testing of Abraham ("now I know what kind of faith you have"), Abram talking God down at Sodom, cheating in a wrestling match w/ Jacob to win, Exodus 32, Isaiah 38-39, and so on and so on.  I've seen that most believers assume a priori when approaching these texts that God is immutable. 

And arguing that God cannot grow/change ignores the central tenant of our faith - the Incarnation.  The Son did not have a human body before Bethlehem.  The Incarnation was a fundamental and permanent change  in the nature of the Godhead (Phil 2).  The divine became flesh and slave.  Life became Death.

In all of this, Hank's question is a valid one, though I think given the nature of God presented in the narrative, one about which we needn't concern ourselves.  The entire story of the Bible is God's work to redeem God's creation.  And these are the qualities of God that God Godself declares immutable. 

A poor analogy - I have changed in many ways throughout my life, but I have always been loud and outgoing.  I suspect I will always be loud and outgoing.  Whatever else changes, I am an extrovert who draws energy from being around others.  This won't change.  I think this is the least we can say about God.

Henry, Augustine was already referenced as an authority, and he was identified as SAINT, which adds to his importance/authority. While he is no doubt important in the historical development of self-reflective writing, his theological ideas have wreaked quite a bit of havok throughout Christian history in my opinion. It's important to note that for the most part, Eastern Orthodox Christianity largely views his theology as outright heresy. The still see him as an important figure, but don't put much of any stock in his beliefs.

I mentioned his Manichean roots because it's important in understanding where he came from, because that informs his later writings. It helps explain how he came up with beliefs that were not postulated/accepted before him (original sin, etc.). I wrote off Augustine's ideas because they were antithetical to scripture, it was only after that when I learned of his roots and came to understand where he was coming from. My mentioning of his prior religion was giving reference and understanding, and was by no means meant to be polemical.

Hank, that's the million dollar question, and one that seemed to seriously bother the Israelites after the Exile. Pre-exile, they often used the bride/bridegroom metaphor to describe the relationship between Israel and God. Yet, when the exile happened and they felt like they had lost their God, they seem to have abandoned the metaphor as there is no post-exilic reference to it. Why? Because according to their laws, the metaphor carried with it the right of divorce. It's interesting to note that when the bride/bridegroom language is initially brought back into vogue with the Christian movement (Mark 2:19-20), divorce is suddenly no longer acceptable (Mark 10:2-9).

Just to be clear, I wasn't putting forth the idea that God can "grow"...though I'm certainly not against the notion either. That specific idea isn't one that I have spent much reflection on, though it does seem like a logical conclusion of open theism which I do lean toward.

Tom and cheapham, or anyone else for that matter,

You still did not demonstrate from a biblical perspective how God "grows" without compromising our assurance that God will save those who have persevered to the end in faithfulness and fidelity to him and Christ. I don't think this conversation can really go anywhere without it, at least not for me. But I do agree, we all take refuge in God's faithfulness to himself and to his covenant and to the honor his Christ. Apart from his faithfulness, God's love would not make our salvation from God's wrath certain for the persevering saints. But if God can change, then the question arises does that mean that God can change his mind about saving his people? I know that no one is asking that question in this thread, but that is why I want to get a definition from those who are putting forth the view that God can "grow." I want to see how this question is kept from being asked.

You can't just write off Augustine's ideas because of his religion before he converted. You are absolutely right that he was definitely tainted by that lens. However, that alone does not negate his views. You can't judge an idea by its sources, just as you can't appeal to authority either. That's just polemics.

I'd like to explore here the merits of the god-out-of-time view. I am heading to school now, so maybe later in the day.

Augustine was also a former practitioner of Manicheanism, a pseudo-gnostic sect that started in the 3rd century. While Augustine later joined the orthodox/catholic rendition of Christianity, it seems that his former theological/philosophical perspectives still heavily influenced his writings (original sin/total depravity, conception of God, etc.).

I enjoyed reading the comments. This is all interesting.

I'm with the classical view that God knows all things. St. Augustine made the point that in God, there's no change, there's no pause, there's no time. God has existed eternally -- willing everything eternally & speaking all words eternally. In other words, God doesn't speak one word at the time or thinks one thought at the time. God thinks everything, speaks everything, and wills everything eternally - because otherwise, he would be mutable & subject to change.
Book 11/Confessions.

Then again, Augustine was a Platonist!

I think my comments to Hank may have made it seem like I have less biblical support for my position than I actually do. There are certainly references in the biblical text to God changing his mind. However, there is little specifically designated to God 'growing.' That, as I said, I think possibly needs to be argued from a larger scale analysis of the biblical narrative.

Henry,
Thanks for the question. I think I would answer with a question....in fact, it would be the question cheapham just asked. (Don't you just love Socratic dialog?)

Hank,
I agree, we've yet to define 'growth' a specifically biblical sense. I'll admit that my thoughts have been more based on inferences founded upon human freedom, than on biblical exegesis. Admittedly, I find it difficult to come up with a text specifically stating that God changes. However, the general flow of scripture might give us some indication of this. Of course, that may depend upon the lens through which we practice our hermeneutics. (i.e. classical theism combined with inerrancy)

BUT, speaking of biblical exegesis - I don't think either the Hebrews passage or the James passage is relevant to this discussion. The point of those passages is not that God does not change or grow, but that God's faithfulness is so sure that the believer can completely trust in him. So, the writers are making pastoral, not necessary theological comments. They are not arguing for immutability, they are encouraging their flock to trust in God's faithfulness - something both Calvinists and Open Theists take refuge in.

Henry, why do we believe that God is "outside of time"? Is this based on biblical definitions of God...or Platonic philosophical proofs? It seems to me that the entire notion stems more from Plato than from scripture, which I find to be a serious problem.

Hank, the author of Hebrews must have never read any of the gospel accounts of Jesus' life...he changed his mind many times. He's also speaking of Jesus in post-resurrection/prost-ascension terms, which seems to change things for early Christian authors. While James seems to be speaking specifically of God's promises, it seems that both of those texts illustrate the importance of understanding the difference of authorial perspective/point of view.

Tom, Honzo, and/or JR,

You still did not define "growth," especially in biblical terms. I am still unsure what to think of all of this discussion of growth because it is being used with no definition. Could you please define it and show how it does not contradict such texts as Hebrews 13:8 and James 1:17? Thank you.

Tom, I am actually much closer to what you are suggesting than I am letting on.

Two quick questions before I run to class:

1) Does the idea that God is outside of time necessitate that he does not change?

2) God appears to change because we experience him inside of time. And their is real relationship/growth there, but outside of time, God has already experienced all of those relationships and so he does not change outside of time, but only within it.

I don't see a Hegelian God in Process either. But must growth be cast in existential terminology?

Can we define 'growth' in more biblical terms - that is, simply by interacting with other free begins, God must grow. That is - once he created autonomous beings who he freely engages with, their freedom necessitates a relationship characterized by growth. If growth is absent from human relationships, we assume the relationship is unhealthy - not really a relationship, but a one sided dictatorship.

Essentially, doesn't a genuine relationship, particpated in by free beings, necessitate growth from both parties?

I know this is a dangerous thought for some, but still worth pursuing.

This is off the top of my head, but I want to speak to JR's comment asking why we can't let the texts BE what they are.

There are three levels of interpretation that I think we post/moderns should go through when encountering a religious text from within our own tradition.

First we need to let the text speak for itself. So, it that sense, I completely agree with you. I can't get a handle on what they are really saying unless I do that. So I agree that we need to see how the authors, editors, and audiences understood the texts and what was being said in the texts. Otherwise we risk ruining what the text has to say to us.

On the other hand, I think that there is also a duty to try to cobble together the 66 or so pictures of God that we get from the 66 books of the Bible. I think there is a privileged position offered by having the complete set. This is a departure from the strict study of Christianity (all this talk about privileged positions), but I am trying not only to study it, but to do Christianity as well here.

When we do this, I think there is some play there between the classical and the open view of God in those books. the God of Job vs. the God of Genesis

So, the question I ask is how do I (we, my community, etc) view God with all the info available to me?

An immutable God does not seem to be there, but as Tom says, a good one does. I don't really see a Hegelian God that grows either. Could it be that from the writer's perspective can it seem as though Jehovah did not know what he was doing and that is why it is recorded as such?

After reading the blog entry, I still don't find the classical view appealing. The argument that the Openness view is wrong because it assumes humans correct an evil God is not only contrary to what Open Theists argue for, it is simply far from helpful - more polemical than anything.

In the passages where God changes His mind, it is not that he is an evil God - it is that he is a just God ready to enact his justice. As Calvinists are always so quick to point out - God's sovereignty includes the enacting of justice. Open Theists simply argue that Abraham and Moses engage God and speak to him of being merciful because of his covenant promises.

I've never read an OT say that God is evil and good humans are needed to correct him. Righteous humans are not needed to temper the passions of a evil deity throwing a temper tantrum.

On the other hand, as the blog entry argued, the classic view makes God a liar. He tells Moses he's going to do one thing, but then never intended to do that thing...hmmm. (My point here is that the Openness view can be just as polemical - and that is never helpful to the discussion).

Classical Theism with its uber-transcendent deity and sovereign king simply misses the point when it comes to the biblical teachings of a immanent Father who is in loving relationship with free beings. He must enact justice, but he is also free to show grace.

JR: could you define what you mean by 'grow' ? Just so we're clear. Thanks buddy.

Just a question... why are we so afraid of a god who can grow, learn and change?  I understand that "this is the classical position", but let's not pretend that that is somehow sacred.  Why are we afraid to let the ancient texts BE what they are?  Why do we have to explain away so many clear statements in Genesis and Exodus where Yahweh doesn't know something, or where he changes his mind, or where he regrets a decision?

What's at stake?