We have a term called regret. It means something to us. We read it and conceive it. Is that what is actually happening in God? Or is it something different like:
Augustine: a change of circumstance flowing from the divine immutable foreknowledge.
Calvin: a change of action

Now we're mixing and matching. Does God exist as we do? No. So does He regret as we do? No.

But does God have a response to the free action of human beings that is best described as regret? Yeah, it says so right there. Not regret as humans have, but a but regret in a divine way.

You take it as far as to say God doesn't respond or react to His creation. I can't see that.

It seems we have two very bright theologians reading the exact same words and coming up with different interpretations based on whether they are Reformed or Orthodox.

And I think it basically comes down to the character of God. The total depravity thing gives a totally different view of God's relationship to man than the Orthodox view.

Very interesting discussion. Thanks.

Quote:

---

Now we're mixing and matching. Does God exist as we do? No. So does He regret as we do? No.

But does God have a response to the free action of human beings that is best described as regret? Yeah, it says so right there. Not regret as humans have, but a but regret in a divine way.

You take it as far as to say God doesn't respond or react to His creation. I can't see that.

---

He doesn't respond or react as we do...without foreknowledge. "Regret in a divine way" is best put as Augustine above put it.

Our capacity for regret reflects something in Him. And that He is different from us doesn't preclude His ability to interact and react with us.

dermdoc said:

---

It seems we have two very bright theologians reading the exact same words and coming up with different interpretations based on whether they are Reformed or Orthodox.

---

What theologians are you referring to? Augustine and Calvin are saying the same thing. Others have said it's a "change of procedure." The point being it's not regret as we perceive it.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Our capacity for regret reflects something in Him.

---

But we're discussing his capacity for regret. The argument is being framed "God's capacity for regret reflects something in us." It's backwards.

Seems that's trying to backwards justify the original text with a later theological understanding than otherwise. And this is an old issue that Jews have struggled with, as the nature of god early in the Bible is often difficult to jive with later understanding.

https://www.sdjewishworld.com/2019/12/01/can-god-regret-is-god-all-knowing/

It comes down to two paths, either you abandon true omniscience (which works rather well throughout the Bible and with free will) or you consider the words as chosen for the masses and not to be considered literally.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

It seems we have two very bright theologians reading the exact same words and coming up with different interpretations based on whether they are Reformed or Orthodox.

---

What theologians are you referring to? Augustine and Calvin are saying the same thing. Others have said it's a "change of procedure." The point being it's not regret as we perceive it.

---

Did you read the link I posted? And the theologians I was talking about were you and K2. You guys know your stuff.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

Our capacity for regret reflects something in Him.

---

But we're discussing his capacity for regret. The argument is being framed "God's capacity for regret reflects something in us." It's backwards.

---

That is not the argument as I perceive it. I personally think it comes down to the perception of total depravity and the character of God.

Aggrad08 said:

---

Seems that's trying to backwards justify the original text with a later theological understanding than otherwise. And this is an old issue that Jews have struggled with, as the nature of god early in the Bible is often difficult to jive with later understanding.

https://www.sdjewishworld.com/2019/12/01/can-god-regret-is-god-all-knowing/

It comes down to two paths, either you abandon true omniscience (which works rather well throughout the Bible and with free will) or you consider the words as chosen for the masses and not to be considered literally.

---

I kind of disagree. I believe in total omniscience. For me, it comes down to God's character as revealed through the Scriptures and the teaching of the Holy Fathers.

And I believe the Eastern Church and the Western Church have different views on a God's character.

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

It seems we have two very bright theologians reading the exact same words and coming up with different interpretations based on whether they are Reformed or Orthodox.

---

What theologians are you referring to? Augustine and Calvin are saying the same thing. Others have said it's a "change of procedure." The point being it's not regret as we perceive it.

---

Did you read the link I posted? And the theologians I was talking about were you and K2. You guys know your stuff.

---

This is from The Orthodox Study Bible. What difference between "Reformed and Orthodox" are you perceiving?

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

It seems we have two very bright theologians reading the exact same words and coming up with different interpretations based on whether they are Reformed or Orthodox.

---

What theologians are you referring to? Augustine and Calvin are saying the same thing. Others have said it's a "change of procedure." The point being it's not regret as we perceive it.

---

Did you read the link I posted? And the theologians I was talking about were you and K2. You guys know your stuff.

---

This is from The Orthodox Study Bible.

---

What does "change of procedure" mean to you?

And I am not denying God's foreknowledge in the slightest.

Did you get a chance to read the link I posted?

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

It seems we have two very bright theologians reading the exact same words and coming up with different interpretations based on whether they are Reformed or Orthodox.

---

What theologians are you referring to? Augustine and Calvin are saying the same thing. Others have said it's a "change of procedure." The point being it's not regret as we perceive it.

---

Did you read the link I posted? And the theologians I was talking about were you and K2. You guys know your stuff.

---

This is from The Orthodox Study Bible.

---

What does "change of procedure" mean to you?

And I am not denying God's foreknowledge in the slightest.

Did you get a chance to read the link I posted?

---

Change of circumstance, change of action, change of the situation. It's a change from our perspective and so God uses the term "regret" so we can understand. Not a change within God or conflict within him like we regret.

What link?

And as a layman, the differences between Reformed and Orthodox basically go to the character of God. The Western church, Catholic and Reformed base their theology almost entirely on Augustine and therefore seem to portray a wrathful God more than the Eastern church.

Again, just my perception.

dermdoc said:

---

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/the-impassible-god-who-cried/

---

dermdoc said:

---

And as a layman, the differences between Reformed and Orthodox basically go to the character of Hod. The Wester church, Catholic and Reformed base their theology almost entirely on Augustine and therefore seem to portray a wrathful God more than the Eastern church.

Again, just my perception.

---

John Owen (one of the most brilliant Reformed theologians): Anger and wrath are not in God

https://reformedcovenanter.wordpress.com/2019/01/14/john-owen-anger-and-wrath-are-not-in-god/

dermdoc said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/the-impassible-god-who-cried/

---

---

"Modern scholars charge that the traditional view of divine impassibility had been corrupted with Greek philosophy and thus strayed away from Scripture's testimony of the true God."

I agree. Impassibility is the traditional view. Yours is modern.

Maybe we're saying the same thing?

God's mode of being is utterly different than ours, so nothing He does is "like" us.

On the other hand, He also chooses to reveal Himself to us and because of this we can know Him. This is real knowledge, even if words fall short of expressing it. The scriptures testify to this knowledge, which came from real experiences of God that people had.

So, we shouldn't discount these words, but try to understand them and what they reveal about God - really, what He is choosing to reveal about Himself through them.

I always think of Jonathan Edwards and Sinner's in the hands of an angry God. And that two people committed suicide after hearing it. And when I compare that with Paul's sermon on Mars Hill, there seems to be a stark difference in the styles and how the Gospel is presented.

dermdoc said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Seems that's trying to backwards justify the original text with a later theological understanding than otherwise. And this is an old issue that Jews have struggled with, as the nature of god early in the Bible is often difficult to jive with later understanding.

https://www.sdjewishworld.com/2019/12/01/can-god-regret-is-god-all-knowing/

It comes down to two paths, either you abandon true omniscience (which works rather well throughout the Bible and with free will) or you consider the words as chosen for the masses and not to be considered literally.

---

I kind of disagree. I believe in total omniscience. For me, it comes down to God's character as revealed through the Scriptures and the teaching of the Holy Fathers.

And I believe the Eastern Church and the Western Church have different views on a God's character.

---

Character is a different question though as logically a perfectly omniscient being literally cannot change it's mind. It's incapable of new information and new reasoning, which is why you see theological arguments for imperfect knowledge and open theism etc. if you stick with the Omni you've no wiggle room.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/the-impassible-god-who-cried/

---

---

"Modern scholars charge that the traditional view of divine impassibility had been corrupted with Greek philosophy and thus strayed away from Scripture's testimony of the true God."

I agree. Impassibility is the traditional view. Yours is modern.

---

No I think God is impassable. I actually think we are saying essentially the same thing but in a different way.

Got to get back to work, thanks for the discussion.

Aggrad08 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Seems that's trying to backwards justify the original text with a later theological understanding than otherwise. And this is an old issue that Jews have struggled with, as the nature of god early in the Bible is often difficult to jive with later understanding.

https://www.sdjewishworld.com/2019/12/01/can-god-regret-is-god-all-knowing/

It comes down to two paths, either you abandon true omniscience (which works rather well throughout the Bible and with free will) or you consider the words as chosen for the masses and not to be considered literally.

---

I kind of disagree. I believe in total omniscience. For me, it comes down to God's character as revealed through the Scriptures and the teaching of the Holy Fathers.

And I believe the Eastern Church and the Western Church have different views on a God's character.

---

Character is a different question though as logically a perfectly omniscient being literally cannot change it's mind. It's incapable of new information and new reasoning, which is why you see theological arguments for imperfect knowledge and open theism etc. if you stick with the Omni you've no wiggle room.

---

Agree. Read Edward's Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God and Paul's sermon on Mars Hill and tell me if you think that they are portraying the same character of God.

Quote:

---

Agree. Read Edward's Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God and Paul's sermon on Mars Hill and tell me if you think that they are portraying the same character of God.

---

I agree they are so different that they are better described as different religions than different sects. The message at mars hill is fundamentally welcoming and is based on what the author perceives as knowledge and excuses the Athenians their ignorance. Edwards is about punishment of the wicked, how they deserve it, and they shall receive it. It's not his invention but based on many hundreds of years of development of this fear based theology throughout Europe.

The message on mars hill does speak of judgment but it's not clear to me what's being described here. Frankly, I agree with most scholars who don't consider the author of acts to have known paul, but rather been a distant admirer. He has a different view of paul and pauls theology and contradicts pauls own accounts of himself. Also, Paul is simply a more intelligent and gifted writer than the author of acts, for authentic Pauline views I'd stick to his letters. Even still the difference in message is clear.

Paul never so much as whispers the thought of hell (there is one mention of Tartarus in a letter widely considered as inauthentically Pauline). He betrays no knowledge of the gospels at all, let alone the verses purported to be said by jesus about hell. He simply has nothing to say about it. Conversely, Edwards, would have nothing to say without hell.

Aggrad08 said:

---

Quote:

---

Agree. Read Edward's Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God and Paul's sermon on Mars Hill and tell me if you think that they are portraying the same character of God.

---

I agree they are so different that they are better described as different religions than different sects. The message at mars hill is fundamentally welcoming and is based on what the author perceives as knowledge and excuses the Athenians their ignorance. Edwards is about punishment of the wicked, how they deserve it, and they shall receive it. It's not his invention but based on many hundreds of years of development of this fear based theology throughout Europe.

The message on mars hill does speak of judgment but it's not clear to me what's being described here. Frankly, I agree with most scholars who don't consider the author of acts to have known paul, but rather been a distant admirer. He has a different view of paul and pauls theology and contradicts pauls own accounts of himself. Also, Paul is simply a more intelligent and gifted writer than the author of acts, for authentic Pauline views I'd stick to his letters. Even still the difference in message is clear.

Paul never so much as whispers the thought of hell (there is one mention of Tartarus in a letter widely considered as inauthentically Pauline). He betrays no knowledge of the gospels at all, let alone the verses purported to be said by jesus about hell. He simply has nothing to say about it. Conversely, Edwards, would have nothing to say without hell.

---

I always thought Luke was supposed to be the author of Acts. And yes, it is hard to read the Sermon on Mars Hill or any of Acts or Paul's letters and make them align with Edwards and other hellfire and brimstone preachers. Augustine had a huge influence on this difference.

Correct on Nineveh. And after 100 years of going back the wrong direction God destroyed Nineveh to never rise again. That is in the book Nahum.

I was surprised as well to hear this.

I did a very quick google search and it looks like there's agreement that "whoever" wrote Acts, also wrote "Luke" (I put this in quotes for the moment).

However, as early as the 2nd century, Irenaeus referred to the writer as Luke and so that's the name that Christians have applied to the books as the author.

So, somewhat feels like criticism to have criticism.