There are many passages which are problematic to Reformed theology. Two such passages which flies in the face of monergism and determinism, part-and-parcel of Calvinism, are the following from the book of Hosea:
O Ephraim, what shall I do unto thee? O Judah, what shall I do unto thee? For your goodness is as a morning cloud, and as the early dew it goeth away. (Hos 6:4)
How shall I give thee up, Ephraim? How shall I deliver thee, Israel? How shall I make thee as Admah? How shall I set thee as Zeboim? Mine heart is turned within me, my repentings are kindled together. (Hos 11:8)
Commenting on Hos 6:4, Francis I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman wrote:
Ephraim and Judah are on the same footing, so far as Yahweh is concerned. The use of the pronouns is precise and constant. In 6:4a each is addressed is singly in the singular; in v 4b both are addressed together in the plural.
Yahweh reveals a similar agony of indecision at 11:8. There it would seem that he is torn between unleashing his wrath (5:10) and continuing to manifest his long-suffering compassion. The indecision of v 4a matches the openness of the situation at this point. The people have been ruined and Yahweh is waiting for them to repent. There is no positive affirmations from Yahweh himself that he will fulfill the aspirations expressed by the people in vv. 1-3. (Francis I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman, Hosea: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [Anchor Bible 24; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1980], 426-27)
On Hos 11:8, we read the following note:
It is strange that Yahweh is still undecided at this late stage, after so many judgments have been mentioned as if his mind were already made up firmly. The same kind of vacillation is revealed in all its pathos in 6:4, which is embedded in a speech whose violence and wrath are as intense as its sorrow. These expressions of the utmost reluctance to exercise the fierce anger achieve two effects. They remove from the judgments all suggestion of vindictiveness. And, if the judgment is unleashed in spite of this effort to restrain it—if, as the Psalmist says, Yahweh’s nostrils are stronger than his intestines (Ps 77:10)—it is because Israel’s sin has gone to the extreme, with no hope of renewal and no trace of contrition to give grounds for compassion. (Ibid., 588)
This ties into Hos 11:9, a text that is often misinterpreted as a “proof-text” against Latter-day Saint theology:
When Yahweh reminds himself that he is a god, and not human, what aspect of the divine character resolves the dilemma for him? Is the execution of justice unswayed by sentiment a human characteristic whereas God, by contrast, is more free to follow his emotions and act beyond the law? Or is Yahweh recognizing that it is typical of human beings to have their judgment clouded by their feelings, especially when it comes to showing favortism?
Deut 1:17 contains a warning against this kind of partiality in either direction: there must be no leniency toward the poor out of pity; no severity against them because they are powerless. The rich too must be treated with strict equity; neither severely, because they are privileged, nor gently, because they are powerful. The reason given is that “the judgment appertains to God.” People should judge as God judges, but they do not always do so; hence the admonition. If Yahweh were to give special considerations to Ephraim, he would be acting in a human way. This course he spurns. The contrast between divine and human modes of action is drawn in similar language in other parts of scripture. Num 23:19 affirms that
God is not a human (lō ‘ȋš ‘ēl) that he should act deceitfully,
not a moral that he should change his mind.
Did he ever say something and not do it?
Promise something and not make it stand?
not a moral that he should change his mind.
Did he ever say something and not do it?
Promise something and not make it stand?
1 Sam 15:29 similarly emphasizes that the Supervisor of Israel will neither deceive nor change his mind, “because he is not a human” (kȋ lō ‘ādām). (The opposite point if made in Isa 31:3—the Egyptians are human, not divine.) If Yahweh were to adhere to his pledged word, he would be a liar and an impostor, just like people, just like Israel.
His reason for following the course of strict justice is stated further by affirming his holiness. In some occurrences qādôš is a personal name for God (Ps 111:9; Job 6:10). If he were contemplating forgiveness, he would declare himself ‘ēl raḥûm wěḥannûn, “a sensitive and gracious god” (Exod 34:6; Freedman, "God Compassionate and Gracious," Western Watch 6:7-24 [1955]). Yet even that supreme revelation cannot eliminate the ambivalence, for it makes the contrary assertion that “he will by no means clear the guilty.” The effect of Moses’ powerful intercession is not to cancel judgment, only to restrain it. Exod 34:6 emphasizes that Yahweh is long-suffering and slow to anger. Theoretically his wrath could be held in check indefinitely. Unlike Moses before him, and Jeremiah after him, and unlike Amos in his own day, we do not see Hosea restraining Yahweh’s anger with prayers. On the contrary, there are over a dozen places were punishment of the most violent kind is threatened, usually with explicit mention of death (2:5, 14; 4:5; 5:12, 14; 6:5; 7:12; 8:13; 9:6, 9, 12, 16; 10:14; 11:6; 13:7-8). Only in 14:5 is there a promise of forgiveness, and there, as in 6:1-3, it is described as healing after injury, revival from death. That is, in Hosea’s theology the divine compassion is expressed, not by deflecting or annulling just anger, but by restoration after the requirements of justice have been satisfied by inflicting the penalties for covenant violations. In v 9a Yahweh reaffirms his determination to carry out “the heart of his anger”; cf. 8:5.
We do not strain this result in order to harmonize the text in a formal fashion, so that 11:9 will not contradict the long list of texts listed above. Hos 6:4 and 11:8 show that Yahweh has a mixed mind. His responses are not automatic. If a negative meaning is maintained for v 9, this cannot be elevated into an absolute truth: to maintain that, in the final analysis, Yahweh cannot bring himself to carry out his anger at this people. At best, v 9, if negative, declares a reluctance, not a permanent decision. The historical events evince wrath against Israel, not mercy for it; so all that the later prophets interpreted the fate of the northern kingdom. (Ibid., 589-90, emphasis in bold added)
For more against Reformed theology, see:
An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology
On Hos 11:9 (cf. Num 23:19), see:
James White on Numbers 23:19
D. Charles Pyle on Hosea 11:9 (cf. Numbers 23:19)
