you're being very literal when it says God repented. so if that is to be literal, did God literally come down?
I would appreciate a proper understanding of those verses if that is not what they mean.
well, God is definitionaly changeless and all knowing, so He doesn't repent.
the pre-Incarnate God is omnipresent so He doesn't come down from one place to another.
How should we interpret those passages, then?well, God is definitionaly changeless and all knowing, so He doesn't repent.
the pre-Incarnate God is omnipresent so He doesn't come down from one place to another.
Changeless as in Divine Simplicity?
How should we interpret those passages, then?
They're always very beneficial to read even though I don't always understand everything.
I would appreciate a proper understanding of those verses if that is not what they mean.
How should we interpret those passages, then?
as using human language, limited as it is, to describe God at work. God doesn't repent in that He changes His mind, but rather He uses that to reveal what His plan was from the beginning which He didn't initially tell man.
From what you have said here, it sounds like the plan of God goes forward like a play that is already written. In light of the verses I posted, from what you said, God put the whole play in motion and never intended anything other than destroying mankind in the flood in the first place. That was always the plan beause God is omniscient.
It also makes it sound to me like man has absolutely zero free will. Everything is planned out from the moment God acted in creation...including the fall of man.
no, that's because God is outside of time, which means He can see and act upon our free choices, without interfering with our will.
the Flood was in the plan from the beginning because God saw that we would sin and where our sin would lead. that isn't the same as saying God planned our sin.
Then why would it "repent" Him, seeing that He foreknew this from the beginning? Makes no sense at all.
Then why would it "repent" Him, seeing that He foreknew this from the beginning? Makes no sense at all.
that was the word used because at the time Genesis was written
Makes no sense because you understand 'repent' in human manner (like any of us, in fact). However the reality of God is totally different that ours. See my continuation below.
Indeed. Our language is waaay too limited - we reach even to contradictions in the same topic but they are both true - when it comes to describe the God behavior: here is a (very) classical example.
There is no way to sugar coat my feelings about this - to me (and this is just my opinion on the matter) this is stunningly dishonest. This is like the debate that I got into with some RC friends on another forum where I said that one of the reasons that Universal Salvation is probably true is because God is love and therefore can only act in line with what He is. They then proceeded to bombard me with the exact same kind of thinking shown here - that words don't really mean what they say because God is so different from us. So love, rather than meaning the doing of that which is best for the object of that love, can actually mean any number of different kinds of behaviors, based on the fact that God is really different from us, higher than us, and unknowable.
Well, if God established language, and words have meaning, then it is the intention that when I say "dog" for instance, I don't mean a creature with fins and scales that swims in water. When I say "love," it doesn't mean coming home to my wife and beating her with my fists.
Human words have the meaning that God gave them, not us. He created language, therefore, when the word "repent" is used, it has a certain and distinct meaning. I find this kind of waffling in order to keep one's theological turf safe to be unbelieveable. I am coming to a point where I wonder if there is any honesty anywhere, rather than people who have staked out a theological position and then will do anything they can to defend that position.
For instance, the example given in the link above does not prove your point. In the site linked, the ultimate message is not that God has different behaviors. The post at the end shows that it is one behavior - love - expressed in different forms in order to achieve the same result, the drawing of the sinner to God. The will is the same - the expressions are different.
Repent does not have a different meaning than that which God has given it in human language.
You are using a Evangelical literalist idea of interpreting Scriptures. Maybe Christ is lower than the Father since He said "neither the Son knows the time of the coming" and "The Father is greater than I".There is no way to sugar coat my feelings about this - to me (and this is just my opinion on the matter) this is stunningly dishonest. This is like the debate that I got into with some RC friends on another forum where I said that one of the reasons that Universal Salvation is probably true is because God is love and therefore can only act in line with what He is. They then proceeded to bombard me with the exact same kind of thinking shown here - that words don't really mean what they say because God is so different from us. So love, rather than meaning the doing of that which is best for the object of that love, can actually mean any number of different kinds of behaviors, based on the fact that God is really different from us, higher than us, and unknowable.
Well, if God established language, and words have meaning, then it is the intention that when I say "dog" for instance, I don't mean a creature with fins and scales that swims in water. When I say "love," it doesn't mean coming home to my wife and beating her with my fists.
Human words have the meaning that God gave them, not us. He created language, therefore, when the word "repent" is used, it has a certain and distinct meaning. I find this kind of waffling in order to keep one's theological turf safe to be unbelieveable. I am coming to a point where I wonder if there is any honesty anywhere, rather than people who have staked out a theological position and then will do anything they can to defend that position.
For instance, the example given in the link above does not prove your point. In the site linked, the ultimate message is not that God has different behaviors. The post at the end shows that it is one behavior - love - expressed in different forms in order to achieve the same result, the drawing of the sinner to God. The will is the same - the expressions are different.
Repent does not have a different meaning than that which God has given it in human language.
I used to be doubtful about hell before Orthodoxy but know I understand that it is not God's actions who hurt them but they themselves wanted to reject God.for one, there is a difference between the limitedness of language prior to the Incarnation, and how the Church reads that language in the light of the Incarnate Word.
universalism is not, and will never be true (as you are defining it) because love must be experienced freely from and to the beloved. that means you have freedom to reject that love.
yes, words have meaning God gives them, but also words have limitations that God has told man. read St Dionysius.
seriously, stop trying to find a back door or loophole for universalism. it's not true.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?