Commenting
on Exo 32-33 where, after Moses’ intercession, God relents from His promise to
destroy the children of Israel, James White, a Reformed Baptist, wrote:
Christian teachers have pointed out for two
thousand years that the many passages that speak of God “repenting” or the like
must be understood from our perspective
as time-bound creatures, not from God’s perspective,
as the Eternal One. The ongoing work of God in time does not change—but our
experience of it does, and for this reason at times it seems God has “changed” in some way in His actions in the world.
For example, when Moses is called to intercede as the leader of the people of
Israel, and God relents of His stated intention to destroy the people, this
does not present a contradiction in Scripture. Instead, God’s actions train and
grow Moses as a leader, which was God’s intention all alone. Many other
examples could be noted. For an exceptional discussion on this, see John
Calvin, Institutes of the Christian
Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17. (James R. White, Is the Mormon My Brother? Discerning the Differences between Mormonism
and Christianity [2d ed.; Birmingham, Ala.: Solid Ground Christian Books,
2008], 24-47 n. 29)
There are
many problems with the above, not the least is that one would have to conclude
that the biblical authors and God Himself who inspired them, are guilty of
divine deception, speaking of God in a way which, after a prima facie,
face-value, reading, would result in a theology which White et al would argue
is blasphemous and heretical, instead of the “true” theology of God’s foreknowledge
and relationship to time which is “Orthodox.”
I question the identification of someone as
truly “evangelical” who would promote the idea that God is not immutable. I do
not include such concepts as “process theology” in the realm of evangelical belief.
(Ibid., 246 n. 28)
Furthermore,
Exo 32-33 (and many other texts), when exegeted (and when one does not, via
eisegesis, read White’s man-made traditions about the nature of God) results in
a non-Reformed theology. For a fuller discussion, see my article:
An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology
Further, White's comments would call into question the perspicuity of the Bible, an important element of the Reformed understanding of Sola Scriptura (see the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, Chapter 1). For a thorough refutation of Sola Scriptura itself (the formal doctrine of the Reformation), see:
Not By Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura
