God Changes?

[marks]

Which is the exact opposite of what you should be when discussing theology.

Again, thank you!

Please . . . how would you re-write it? Do you understand what I'm getting at? Do you agree with this? Perhaps you might post your own version?

Much love!

 

[Waiting on him]

Again, thank you!

Please . . . how would you re-write it? Do you understand what I'm getting at? Do you agree with this? Perhaps you might post your own version?

Much love!

You can't do that in orthodoxy.

 

[Renniks]

The God, the Father, that Creates the Son changes from a God who does not love, and becomes one that does.

While Malachi prophesies, I YHWH change not.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

God is love, and God loves the Son. If God were alone before the creation of the Son, there was none to love. Not Himself, that's a self-indulgent love. God is love, and has always loved.

There was not a time when God decided that He wanted to start loving, and so created an object of that love.

Let's say that's exactly what God did, created an object of His love so that He could love. Do you see it? God then reveals He has a need that must be fulfilled by His creation. He wanted to love, but had none to love, so He made someone to love.

But "I YHWH change not". God has always loved, and shares the love He has always had with us.

Much love!

Ok I agree but I don't agree. No, Jesus isn't a created being, and we know this for lots of reasons, one being that we are told Jesus created all things. But creating new angels or people doesn't mean God changes. God desiring to love someone new doesn't mean he suddenly started loving. I'm not sure your argument really works, but maybe I'm missing something. God can certainly change in the sense of new experiences. But his character doesn't change.

 

[quietthinker]

The God, the Father, that Creates the Son changes from a God who does not love, and becomes one that does.

While Malachi prophesies, I YHWH change not.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

God is love, and God loves the Son. If God were alone before the creation of the Son, there was none to love. Not Himself, that's a self-indulgent love. God is love, and has always loved.

There was not a time when God decided that He wanted to start loving, and so created an object of that love.

Let's say that's exactly what God did, created an object of His love so that He could love. Do you see it? God then reveals He has a need that must be fulfilled by His creation. He wanted to love, but had none to love, so He made someone to love.

But "I YHWH change not". God has always loved, and shares the love He has always had with us.

Much love!

The Son was never created according to Scripture..., he was one with the Father from eternity.

Superimposing our own theories on God’s word is no different to adding or taking away from it.

 

[farouk]

The God, the Father, that Creates the Son changes from a God who does not love, and becomes one that does.

While Malachi prophesies, I YHWH change not.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

God is love, and God loves the Son. If God were alone before the creation of the Son, there was none to love. Not Himself, that's a self-indulgent love. God is love, and has always loved.

There was not a time when God decided that He wanted to start loving, and so created an object of that love.

Let's say that's exactly what God did, created an object of His love so that He could love. Do you see it? God then reveals He has a need that must be fulfilled by His creation. He wanted to love, but had none to love, so He made someone to love.

But "I YHWH change not". God has always loved, and shares the love He has always had with us.

Much love!

My mind went to Malachi, and then I saw that the passage in Malachi which I had in mind had already been quoted.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

Again, thank you!

Please . . . how would you re-write it? Do you understand what I'm getting at? Do you agree with this? Perhaps you might post your own version?

Much love!

What you’re saying reminds me of the video you posted months ago. I don’t remember the guy’s name on the video, but I would love to watch it again if you posted it here.

 

[Enoch111]

I reread it but WOW that was about the most unclear and confusing post ever.

I would agree with this.

The God, the Father, that Creates the Son changes from a God who does not love, and becomes one that does.

This is incorrect. Since God is IMMUTABLE, God has always been (1) Love, (2) Light, and (3) Life. He had no beginning and will have no end. The Son is also eternal with the Father and the Spirit, and God the Father has had an eternal Father-Son relationship with the Son. That is the meaning of the only begotten Son -- the UNIQUELY begotten Son. So the Father has always loved the Son from eternity past. He has also designated the Son as the Creator, the Redeemer, and the Judge of mankind. Furthermore, the Father has handed over all power and authority to the Son, until such time as the Son hands back everything to the Father ( 1 Cor 15:24-28).

But because God is Love, His love extends to His creatures, particularly His creature man, who was made in the image and likeness of God. Therefore we have this Scripture: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. (John 3:16,17).

While God is immutable -- does not and cannot change -- that does not mean that His dealings with mankind do not change. Thus we have the various covenants, and the contrast between the Old and New Covenants. The Old Covenant is now null and void, and the New Covenant went into effect the day Christ died, and ratified it with his own blood.

 

[Dcopymope]

Thank you!!

:)

And you're proud of being the author of confusion in your own post?

 

[stredaleve]

God then reveals He has a need that must be fulfilled by His creation. He wanted to love, but had none to love, so He made someone to love.

you do know what you just did
right?

you just judge the perfect God
you are imperfect yet you judge the perfect
what am i trying to say?

most of the time it is beyond our imagination what he does we simply can't explain it

but this sounds improper
He wanted to love, but had none to love, so He made someone to love.

 

[marks]

Ok I agree but I don't agree. No, Jesus isn't a created being, and we know this for lots of reasons, one being that we are told Jesus created all things. But creating new angels or people doesn't mean God changes. God desiring to love someone new doesn't mean he suddenly started loving. I'm not sure your argument really works, but maybe I'm missing something. God can certainly change in the sense of new experiences. But his character doesn't change.

This is somewhat new thinking to me, so that's what I like about a good forum! Helps to refine things. Test things. Like that.

What I'm thinking over is that in the same way that God is gathering together everything in Chirst, to be presented to the Father, this is a continuation of the relationship the Father has with the Son in the eternal, for lack of a better word.

That the Father and the Son always are. That God always, fully loves the Son. That God is love, shown in Eternal Love, the Son for the Father, the Father for the Son.

That God gives His love, and created us to include us in His love. His Eternal Love for the Son. Now we are being gathered together in Christ, to share in all the Son is and has, the Great Marriage. To share the inheritance, and the love of the Father.

But if the Son is not equally eternal, then all this goes away, because the Father did not alway love, was not always a Father, but decided He wanted something more, so became all that. But God does not change.

So to me this is a demonstration of the reality of the eternal existence of the Son, co-eternal, and co-existent with the Father.

Also struck me as a great opportunity to talk about the mystery, that God is giving us Sonship. In Christ we share what is His. In Christ we share His relationship with His Father.

Much love!

 

[marks]

you do know what you just did
right?

you just judge the perfect God
you are imperfect yet you judge the perfect
what am i trying to say?

most of the time it is beyond our imagination what he does we simply can't explain it

but this sounds improper
He wanted to love, but had none to love, so He made someone to love.

I'm getting a lot of this. Seems like I could have put things better, but then, that's one thing I'm here to work out. So all of your comments help me to learn to clarify this topic, both for myself, and to be able to express it well to others.

This strike through part, That is the implication if Jesus were to have been a created being, rather than co-eternal with God. My post #30 may explain my thinking better.

Much love!

 

[DPMartin]

Doing something new is one thing. God is love . . . but if He was alone in the beginning, then how would that be true?

The best answer I've heard is that God anticipated His creation, and loved it, however, that would mean that God's nature is dependant on His creation. I don't think that is so.

Much love!

what, you don't think God loves Himself?

a father loves his son because his son is of himself. he doesn't care for the children of others like he does his son, they are not his. and a child is his because the child is of himself.

 

[marks]

The Son was never created according to Scripture..., he was one with the Father from eternity.

Superimposing our own theories on God’s word is no different to adding or taking away from it.

Absolutely yes!! I was thinking about this as I was reading some posts people were writing from the standpoint that Jesus had in fact come into existence at some point, rather than being co-eternal with the Father.

But yes, I'm in complete agreement, the Son is always one with the Father. He has Never not existed.

Much love!

 

[bbyrd009]

exist
1.
have objective reality or being.

 

[marks]

Ok I agree but I don't agree. No, Jesus isn't a created being, and we know this for lots of reasons, one being that we are told Jesus created all things. But creating new angels or people doesn't mean God changes. God desiring to love someone new doesn't mean he suddenly started loving. I'm not sure your argument really works, but maybe I'm missing something. God can certainly change in the sense of new experiences. But his character doesn't change.

If I were to distill it to the simplest statement, maybe like this:

IF God is love, He didn't become love, He always is love. If God created the Son, then He hasn't always been love, there being no object for that love, therefore He changed, to become loving, with the 'creation' of His Son.

The Constancy of God is our single anchor. From Malachi, I like the way He puts it here, "I the LORD change not, therefore you, O Jacob, are not consumed!" Our safety in His hands is in His constancy. He never changes. He is always Who He says He is, and in Christ, He is our Father also.

The character, or nature of God, is supreme over all. Therefore any idea that God might grow or change carries with it the idea that God somehow was "less then" and now is in the process of "doing better". But that's not God. Knowing the constancy of God, we can know that Jesus was not created, but is co-eternal with the the Father.

Much love!

 

[marks]

What you’re saying reminds me of the video you posted months ago. I don’t remember the guy’s name on the video, but I would love to watch it again if you posted it here.

I've been processing on that for a while now I guess! I'm pretty sure I know the one, I'll find it.

Much love!

 

[marks]

I would agree with this.

This is incorrect. Since God is IMMUTABLE, God has always been (1) Love, (2) Light, and (3) Life. He had no beginning and will have no end. The Son is also eternal with the Father and the Spirit, and God the Father has had an eternal Father-Son relationship with the Son. That is the meaning of the only begotten Son -- the UNIQUELY begotten Son. So the Father has always loved the Son from eternity past. He has also designated the Son as the Creator, the Redeemer, and the Judge of mankind. Furthermore, the Father has handed over all power and authority to the Son, until such time as the Son hands back everything to the Father ( 1 Cor 15:24-28).

But because God is Love, His love extends to His creatures, particularly His creature man, who was made in the image and likeness of God. Therefore we have this Scripture: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. (John 3:16,17).

While God is immutable -- does not and cannot change -- that does not mean that His dealings with mankind do not change. Thus we have the various covenants, and the contrast between the Old and New Covenants. The Old Covenant is now null and void, and the New Covenant went into effect the day Christ died, and ratified it with his own blood.

That's the word! The immutable. Yes, that's what I'm talking about, the immutability of God. That shows that God could not have created the Son, therefore the Son was not created, but is co-eternal.

God's dealing with mankind will be one thing. But we are in the Son.

Much love!

 

[marks]

And you're proud of being the author of confusion in your own post?

Um, actually I was attempting to convey something that seemed important to me. Pretty much what I try to do here.

My all time favorite movie, It's a Wonderful Life, there's this scene where George (James Sterwart) is in Mary's house (Donna Reed). He's terribly attracted to Mary, but want's nothing to do with a life that's going to tie him down. They are both searching for something to say, and he snaps out, "Still smells like pine in here!" It's Christmastime. It's not particularly nice, not particularly useful. She looks at him a moment, and says, maybe a bit formally, "thank you!" It's a response, it's an attempt to be nice.

And the fact is, I appreciate criticism, if it's done in a reasonably decent way. I haven't read through the whole thread yet, but so far no one has called me an idiot, or called into question my language skills, or whatever.

I haven't looked back at my first post this morning, but I guess it must be some "stream of consciousness" thing that made sense only to me!

:)

Much love!

 

[Renniks]

If I were to distill it to the simplest statement, maybe like this:

IF God is love, He didn't become love, He always is love. If God created the Son, then He hasn't always been love, there being no object for that love, therefore He changed, to become loving, with the 'creation' of His Son.

The Constancy of God is our single anchor. From Malachi, I like the way He puts it here, "I the LORD change not, therefore you, O Jacob, are not consumed!" Our safety in His hands is in His constancy. He never changes. He is always Who He says He is, and in Christ, He is our Father also.

The character, or nature of God, is supreme over all. Therefore any idea that God might grow or change carries with it the idea that God somehow was "less then" and now is in the process of "doing better". But that's not God. Knowing the constancy of God, we can know that Jesus was not created, but is co-eternal with the the Father.

Much love!

I see it a bit differently. I'm not sure that God always has to have someone outside himself to love in order to be Love. His attributes are what they are regardless. And since the Son, and Holy Spirit are all one, there was no one outside himself to love at one time ( if time even has any meaning to God)
The incarnation was certainly a change for God, don't you think? The Trinity was in some sense separated so that Jesus could become human. So, I will not say God doesn't change in some way, only that his character doesn't change.

 

[bbyrd009]

Um, actually I was attempting to convey something that seemed important to me. Pretty much what I try to do here.

My all time favorite movie, It's a Wonderful Life, there's this scene where George (James Sterwart) is in Mary's house (Donna Reed). He's terribly attracted to Mary, but want's nothing to do with a life that's going to tie him down. They are both searching for something to say, and he snaps out, "Still smells like pine in here!" It's Christmastime. It's not particularly nice, not particularly useful. She looks at him a moment, and says, maybe a bit formally, "thank you!" It's a response, it's an attempt to be nice.

And the fact is, I appreciate criticism, if it's done in a reasonably decent way. I haven't read through the whole thread yet, but so far no one has called me an idiot, or called into question my language skills, or whatever.

I haven't looked back at my first post this morning, but I guess it must be some "stream of consciousness" thing that made sense only to me!

:)

Much love!

i think "not the Author of confusion" is prolly an intentionally misleading phrase anyway, in light of Yah's nonsense is better than man's sense, and some other vv;
after all i think "confusion" is subjective, more often than not anyway?