How Do We Reconcile an Unchanging God with the New Covenant?
If God doesn't change, why does God deal with the world in different ways throughout history?
Comments
Seems to me the problem stems from faulty or mistaken views of Predestination, God's Foreknowledge, and the notion of Dispensationalism.
Or, to put it another way, trying to read the Bible through the lens of Post-Enlightenment thinking, especially Historicism and Progressivism.
Therefore, the danger, it seems to me, is that even many Christians study their Bible through this faulty lens which brings about problems like this.
More interestingly, why does the Bible recount many, many instances of God changing his mind, regretting his decisions, or being persuaded?
Because, undoubtedly, the God character in the Biblical books is manifested through the eyes of the writers, who cannot help but attribute human characteristics to him.
Some of the same authors that depict God changing are the same one's that depict God as unchanging (e.g., 1 Samuel 15). So Perry's remark makes no sense. Could the authors also not help but attribute divine characteristics to him?
And since it's clearly possible to have different and compatible senses in which a person is and is not repentant or regret or change then the principle of charity dictates that we understand the authors to have different senses of repentance or regret in mind. For instance, in the 1 Samuel passage the first instance (God will not regret) indicates that his plan's for Saul will not be changed and the second instance can be understood as God's displeasure with Saul's reign.
It's an intellectually lazy atheist tactics to say that since Christians say God is "unchanging" then any instance of "change" found in the Bible attributed to God disproves that claim. A more intellectually sophisticated atheist should ask themselves "In what sense do Christians say that God is unchanging?" And then they should do some research to find out.
For instance, the Westminster Shorter Catechism spells out in exactly what way God is unchanging: "in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth" (Q & A 4). God's grief over Saul is not a change in God's wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.
Hi STR! Dr. Richard Holland of Liberty University wrote "God, Time and the Incarnation" surveying the leading Christian theologians on this topic and concluded that specifically *with respect to the Incarnation* the church has never openly defended its claim that God is utterly unchangeable. In my debate with theologian Dr. James White I took that insight and five times asked him about whether God the Son took upon Himself a human nature. (There's a 2-min YouTube showing those excerpts.) So far beyond the old/new covenant issue, reaching right into the heart of the Trinity, God the Son became a Man. God is unchanging in His fierce commitment to righteousness (i.e., His holiness), but because He is the Living God, He changes in immeasurable ways, including when the Son became the Son of Man.
Some of the same authors that depict God changing are the same one's that depict God as unchanging (e.g., 1 Samuel 15). So Perry's remark makes no sense.
Yes, it makes sense, because humans have enough insight to grasp a little of what God's unchanging nature might mean, even though we cannot fully understand it. There is no race to fully understand God's ways, because we clearly cannot. The fact that not all believers in God come to the same conclusion is evidence of the human factor, so naturally that's going to show up in the Biblical books.
Yes, it makes sense, because humans have enough insight to grasp a little of what God's unchanging nature might mean, even though we cannot fully understand it.
That still doesn't make it the case that the human authors "cannot help but attribute human characteristics to him."
The fact that not all believers in God come to the same conclusion is evidence of the human factor, so naturally that's going to show up in the Biblical books.
But I've shown that the position is held by the *same* author, so again your supposition of "not all believers... com[ing] to the same conclusion" doesn't make sense. Since there is no contradiction between a single author holding the views in question, there is no reason to suppose that multiple authors could not also hold the same views together even if they only make mention of one view (e.g. God regretting).
Bob Enyart,
I have't heard the debate you refer to, but I do occasionally listen to the Dividing Line and I distinctly remember James White pointing out that your attempt to demonstrate a change in God ignores the doctrine of the hypostatic union.
I think I find myself in agreement with Perry this time. And, I think, Perry is agreeing with Greg in different words.
I wouldn't go so far as saying that the Biblical authors attribute human characteristics to God. Instead, I'd say that they use human language to describe Him. At one moment, his eternal and unchanging nature appears one way to humans, and they might describe it that way. At another moment, his eternal and unchanging nature appears another way, and they might describe it that way. And they might even combine those two differing descriptions using language normally used for describing change.
Imagine an equilateral triangle hovering tip down over a line. Suppose that the plane of the triangle is perpendicular to the line. Now imagine that you are moving along that line. At times, that triangle will appear to be acute, at times it will appear to be right, and at times it will appear to be obtuse. When you are closest to the triangle, i.e. looking up at the tip hovering over the line, it won't look like a triangle at all, but like a line segment. And it will never look exactly like what it is: equilateral.
You might say that the triangle flattened out as you moved along the line. Such language is not incorrect, but it is inherently relational. You are not providing a description of the inherent properties of the triangle. Instead, you are describing the changing relation you have with it.
If what Perry meant was that the biblical authors sometimes use anthropomorphic language to describe God, then of course who would disagree with that? That's theology 101. But it's not clear whether you're agreeing with Perry or reinterpreting Perry.
The idea that the Bible sometimes uses anthropomorphic language of God is not very well captured in saying that in the Bible God "is manifested through the eyes of the writers, who cannot help but attribute human characteristics to him." As I pointed out, these same writers attribute divine characteristics (or incommunicable attributes) to God... So *clearly* they are capable of not attributing human characteristics to God at least sometimes.
Furthermore, if Perry is simply saying what you are, then his statement that "not all believers in God come to the same conclusion is evidence of the human factor, so naturally that's going to show up in the Biblical books" looks even more out of place. Whatever Perry is saying, he seems to think it results in the Bible having different (inconsistent?) conclusions about what God is like.
My point is that we should expect to see human attributes in God's character, for better or worse, since we are dealing with texts written by humans. Text is limited in its ability to describe spiritual concepts; it can only go so far before the flesh and blood starts to show. This is not indicative of a "fault" or "error" in the texts. As readers (and writers), we create our own meaning from texts and each see it through our own lens. The Bible is not immune. Hence, we have myriad schools of thought on a variety of subjects within Christendom.
In conclusion, we can't expect to find a perfect or complete description of God in the Bible. There will always be mystery (obviously).
My point is that we should expect to see human attributes in God's character, for better or worse, since we are dealing with texts written by humans.
We are also dealing with texts written by a single divine author.
Text is limited in its ability to describe spiritual concepts;
God, as the author of language, can make text perfectly suited to communicate exactly what God intended to.
it can only go so far before the flesh and blood starts to show.
Since God created every person with their unique qualities and properties and determined the environment in which every person would be born and shaped by nurture and culture, flesh and blood is no obstacle to God's intention to communicate.
As readers (and writers), we create our own meaning from texts and each see it through our own lens.
And some of those lenses and meanings that we create are wrong, insofar as they don't align with the meaning intended by the author(s).
The Bible is not immune. Hence, we have myriad schools of thought on a variety of subjects within Christendom.
So let's also keep in mind that you originally started unfolding these ideas in response to Phillip's question about the *Bible*. And here it looks like you're again applying these ideas to the Bible.
So it looks like the best way to read you is as saying that there are "myriads of schools of thought" within the *Bible*. (In fact, though, it looks like you're trying to be intentionally vague here.)
But, as I've pointed out numerous times now, that conclusion is a non-sequitur if the evidence is supposed to be attributions of change to God and attributions of immutability to God, since we have instances of the very same author espousing both views and since there are easy ways to see how these two things are compatible.
And the idea that there are varying schools of thought outside of the Bible doesn't require the theory that this is owing to any attribute of the Bible. We can fully account for that data by acknowledging various traditions, biases, and motives of the audience.
In conclusion, we can't expect to find a perfect or complete description of God in the Bible. There will always be mystery (obviously).
Except what you've said fails to account for the divine author of the Bible. Given that Scripture is the word of God, we can expect to find a perfect description of God in the Bible, if we understand "perfect" to mean exactly what God intended and "perfectly" true in what it reveals about God and his works.
No theologian has ever claimed that the description of God in the Bible is "complete", so there is no reason to burn that straw-man.
We are also dealing with texts written by a single divine author.
...which is an opinion, not a fact, and an opinion I do not share. Sounds awfully like the view the Muslims hold of the Qur'an.
And some of those lenses and meanings that we create are wrong, insofar as they don't align with the meaning intended by the author(s)
...which we may never know, and which makes certainty of "what the Bible says" a suspect statement to me.
At any rate, thanks, but we probably cannot continue this discussion because we have different starting points. I see the Bible as ground-up, and you see it as Heaven-down.
...which is an opinion, not a fact, and an opinion I do not share. Sounds awfully like the view the Muslims hold of the Qur'an.
You've offered no reason for us to think it's "not a fact." I could just as easily state that your position "is an opinion, not a fact" and point out that despite it being your opinion (and not a fact) you've asserted it with all the confidence of a fundy in this thread.
Sounds awfully like the view the Muslims hold of the Qur'an.
Which demonstrates your lack of understanding of both Islamic understanding of the Quran and Evangelical understanding of plenary inspiration.
But even if we assume that Islam understands the Quran to be a product identical to the way some evangelicals understand the Bible, so what? Are you just banking on the hope that a fence sitter might be such an islamaphobe that they will be repulsed by the idea of the Bible being divinely inspired just because that's the way Muslims view the Quran? Or is it just your own islamaphobia peeking out? ;)
...which we may never know, and which makes certainty of "what the Bible says" a suspect statement to me.
So the bare possibility of our being mistaken undermines certainty? Sorry, but that's not how we operate in our everyday epistemic duties. What's your argument for why we should adopt this special epistemic duty here?
At any rate, thanks, but we probably cannot continue this discussion because we have different starting points. I see the Bible as ground-up, and you see it as Heaven-down.
Plantinga provides a model of warrant for such a starting point in his Warranted Christian belief (or his Knowledge and Christian Belief).
Well, I expect to see human attributes in God because of the incarnation. Not because of the limitations of human authors.
That said, language is a limited tool. God can no more make it able to express His entire nature than he can put corners on a circle.
It's just not logically possible for language to give us a complete picture of God...not even divinely inspired language.
Heck, it's not logically possible for language to give us a complete picture of just about anything. You will never, through language, provide a full picture of me let alone God.
None of the words in the autographs of Scripture came as a surprise to God...and He could have ensured that they ended up different if He wanted to...so I have to assume that the words as they were originally written is just what God intended. Only He was in any position to correct any error that might have shown up in the autographs. So only he can be held responsible for any falsehoods we might find there.
That's fine. But again no one said that the Bible or human language gives us a complete picture of God or expresses his entire nature. Nor am I aware of any theologian (or theological camp) who makes such a claim. The question raised by Phillip that Perry responded to that sparked this discussion, from the beginning, was whether the Biblical picture of God is consistent, not whether it's exhaustive...
In speaking of God’s unchanging contours the following essay on the Incarnation as Trinitarian is linked to a second comment subsuming all within the fullness of God in all of our first principles.
Yes, Augustine went back and snuck these verses into our Bibles:
1 Samuel 15:29 And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for he is not a man, that he should have regret.”
Malachi 3:6 “For I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed.
Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.
James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.
He was only successful of course because we lack the autographs.
“From the highest to the lowest, self exists to be abdicated and, by that abdication, becomes the more truly self, to be thereupon yet the more abdicated, and so forever. This is not a heavenly law which we can escape by remaining earthly, nor an earthly law which we can escape by being saved. What is outside the system of self-giving is not earth, nor nature, nor 'ordinary life', but simply and solely hell. Yet even hell derives from this law such reality as it has. That fierce imprisonment in the self is but the obverse of the self-giving which is absolute reality; the negative shape which the outer darkness takes by surrounding and defining the shape of the real, or which the real imposes on the darkness by having a shape and positive nature of its own.” (C.S. Lewis)
The non-repentance of Romans 11:29 and the instantiation of Christ within temporal becoming discovers the Face of God in all possible worlds:
How odd a vantage point mind must perceive when Immutability reaches into the Mutable, when the Actual reaches into the Actualiz-ing.
How is it that Uncreated Love never changes, yet, Man awakes to find himself inside of an ever-changing some-thing?
We need not fear our own side of actualization nor need we think that such is a detraction from He Who is the “Ever-Actual”.
Whatever we think the phrase vivid perception entails in the idol called Outside-Of-God, we can rest assured that inside of God our actualizations will entail far more vivid perception, and of far greater distances. This is why, as The Adamic stands amid Eden’s Possible Worlds, Satan’s promise of more sight vis-à-vis the Outside (outside of God-In-Man/Man-In-God) just is deception – for the Adamic will necessarily see farther, more, better, on the Inside (inside of God-In-Man/Man-In-God). Mutable Mind describes Immutable Mind: “God breathed into Adam’s nostrils…” we find God is void of lungs and hence cannot breathe. “Oh dear! – Tis a problem! For God hath not a lung by which to breathe!”
So too we find in Genesis 6:6 the sightline of Man, the mutable, peering into God, the immutable, and the descriptive of such in scripture is expressly anthropomorphic and this is definitional on Scripture’s own category terms as Inspiration is not Prophecy and Prophecy is not Dictation, and so on ever closer towards the thing that is “Thus Said God” as He Who Is Actuality, Who is [All-Possibilities] sees, on necessity, the [A to Z]. As always, we must take Scripture’s entire [A to Z] should we fashion definitions of God or of reality.
M.H. comments,
“These are expressions after the manner of men, and must be understood so as not to reflect upon…God’s immutability or felicity. This language does not imply any passion or uneasiness in God (nothing can create disturbance to the Eternal Mind), but it expresses his just and holy displeasure against sin…..[God] is pressed by the sins of his creatures (Amos. 2:13 ), wearied (Isa. 43:24 ), broken (Eze. 6:9 ), grieved (Ps. 95:10 )…. It does not imply any change of God’s mind…..it expressed a change of His way…… now that man had apostatized, he could not do otherwise than show himself displeased; so that the change was in man, not in God.”
The same [A to Z] which justifiably gives the descriptive of God as untiring also justifiably gives the descriptive of Him wearied, and so on, for, Mutable Mind peers into the Immutable and describes the array of contour and nuance there inside of Immutable Love. God is The-Ever-Actual. That which is Actuality is the Necessary Grain of Reality, and, should Man run his fingers against that Grain, the only Grain there is, we will find Mutable Mind giving the descriptive of nuance there of Actuality “splintering man full of holes”, or other such statements.
In fact, we can almost say this regarding said splinters: Should God remain still, that is the vantage point which Mutable Mind will express of the Immutable Mind: “God splintered the man full of holes”. But of course, all God “did” was remain still, and therein God “did” just nothing at all, whereas, Man did motion, did change. There is more of course, for God is not static – but the fallacy of “Motion equals Change” simply mistakes Pure Act for Change and thus equates God’s Motion (Pure Act, Pure Actuality) to Man’s motion (actualization, change, temporal becoming).
On “change” – bear with the groundwork just a bit further:
God is innately love’s unity of Being’s vertices, of [Self-Other-Us], that is to say, Being has three unavoidable vertices which constitute the fully singular, the fully triune, which ends all regresses. The Self. The Other. The Collective Whole. Such firmly establishes love’s relational corridors amid ceaseless reciprocity as the highest ethic in all possible worlds. Therefore: We find that should Man motion out of, or, against, love’s Whole we find there the Immutable Tree with His Immutable Grain of love running in Actuality’s Direction, and, we also find Man running his hand against that grain. Herein there remains only two options for Man’s Mutable Mind to discover/perceive:
[A] Either God does nothing at all and Man finds that perception of himself getting splintered full of holes, and justifiably writes of such within the category of Inspiration, or……
[B] God moves, motions, and spares Man, and such a motion on the end of the Ever-Actual would be that thing, that perception, which Man’s mutable mind would describe as, “And God had mercy….” and so justifiably writes of such within the category of Inspiration. Immutable love need never change (does not change, ever), and therein Good never changes, and therein Evil never changes, and therein the Created Agent fully Capacitated with Will, with Volition amid Self/Other vis-à-vis the Imago Dei Willed by, decreed by, Power Himself finds at his (man’s) own fingertips there in Eden the currency of all possible worlds: love, or, lovelessness.
Therefore:
In Numbers 22:12 Love reaches into hell, into love-less-ness (as Scripture defines reality in the opening pages of Genesis vis-à-vis the Triune’s Singular-Us) and declares a law to a man. The man then motions further into hell. Love, being love, follows man into his hell in Numbers 22:20. And numbers 22:20 cannot change 22:12, thus Numbers 22:22 must be paid in full, in some vector somewhere, whether man in hell beholds it or not. Love reaches into hell in all sorts of ways, but hell is still hell and Numbers 23:19 finds Love as the Whole, the shape of which gives all things (even the Outside as the C.S. Lewis quote alludes to) the shape which they by definition have.
How odd a vantage point mind must perceive when Immutability reaches into the Mutable, when the Actual reaches into the Actualizing. While we find in this Image no Changing and no Discovering within Him, the Ever-Actual, we do find radical changing, radical discovering, in the Created, the Actualizing. We are given by God various modes of imaging by which to perceive truths about Him. While He is Unchanging, those varied vectors by which we spy His curves and contours are, necessarily, ever changing. At least for now. Perhaps forever. Time is an odd thing. [Actual], [All-Possibilities], and [Actualizing] are nearly as odd. As He nears us, as we near Him, love’s innate [Self-Other-Us], Being’s three unavoidable vertices, the fully singular and the fully triune becomes ever more Actual, and so on.
“…….this will not….. happen in a day; poetry replaces grammar, gospel replaces law, longing transforms obedience, as gradually as the tide lifts a grounded ship.” (C.S. Lewis).
God is, unavoidably, the necessary – that is to say – God is [All-Possibilities] and Man is ever actualizing, ever discovering, whereas, God is Ever-Actual, and as Man finds himself in motion he necessarily perceives new/different contours, silhouettes, and reliefs of the [Ever-Actual] Himself. In fact, except for Immutable Love’s [Self-Other-Us] the word “definition” is itself a word without definition.
Think about that.
There is no definition but for this in relation to that, that in relation to this – and Being’s unavoidable vertices emerge as inescapably triune. The Self. The Other. The Collective Whole. Such is God. Such is love. Such is Pure Actuality.
Man is not that. Man changes.
He Who is [All-Possibility] sees, necessarily, all. This entire topography of the OT and the NT just is the narrative of Man in motion into/out-of love, of Man running with/against Actuality’s Unchanging Grain, of the Ever-Actual seeing All necessarily, and of Power’s Will to Capacitate Man with Motion in-to/out-of Self/Other – the Imago Dei. All of this is directly applicable to the verses mentioned above and, to the likes of other “difficult” verses, which are not, when housed within Scripture’s [A to Z], difficult at all, as in, say, Deuteronomy 31:16 and 21, and Deuteronomy 28:68 specifically, and, all of Deuteronomy 28 generally which is simply the descriptive of the available Ceiling and Floor inside of the Outside (inside of man’s painful privation) – what Genesis 3:16 defines as hell (on definition) on Earth pending Genesis 3:15’s Actualization within Time and Physicality there in John 3:16. This entire topography is directly applicable, also, to Deuteronomy 30:1-3, Jeremiah 12:14-17, Jeremiah 18:7-10, I Chronicles 21:15, Jonah 3:10, Exodus 32:14, the landscape of I Samuel Chap. 8 combined with Romans chap 1’s three “…so God gave them over to their wants….”, I Samuel 15:11/29, and Malachi 3:6. Finally, we see in Romans 11:29 the justified descriptive of that Motion on love’s (God’s) end, that of Pouring-Out, of Filling-Up, which we justifiably perceive as Ransom, which is, justifiably, given the descriptive of “no repentance” on the part of the Ever-Actual, for, as Man may motion in-to/out-of love’s landscape, love’s Eternally Sacrificed Self (Christ) remains Ever-Actual within the Triune’s milieu of ceaseless reciprocity.
Herein we find yet another example of the coherence of “All-Possibilities” (God) and “Unwilled Actuality” (Evil) all of which derive their very definition by and in their relational constitution to “Pure-Actuality” Who is Himself immutable love, as, but for His Timeless and Unchanging Landscape the word “definition” is itself a word without definition. In fact, but for the immutable – all our definitions must end within the unintelligible at some ontological seam somewhere. It is at such junctures where Reason as truth-finder begins to spy precisely where the metaphysical wherewithal of God, in particularly the Triune God, succeeds in doing the necessary work whereas, on all such fronts, Non-Theism collapses.
C.S. Lewis comments on the shape of the Really Real,
“From the highest to the lowest, self exists to be abdicated and, by that abdication, becomes the more truly self, to be thereupon yet the more abdicated, and so forever. This is not a heavenly law which we can escape by remaining earthly, nor an earthly law which we can escape by being saved. What is outside the system of self-giving is not earth, nor nature, nor "ordinary life," but simply and solely Hell. Yet even Hell derives from this law such reality as it has. That fierce imprisonment in the self is but the obverse of the self-giving which is absolute reality; the negative shape which the outer darkness takes by surrounding and defining the shape of the real, or which the real imposes on the darkness by having a shape and positive nature of its own….”
As you all very well know, the Bible is replete with examples of God becoming angry, changing His mind, regretting past actions, and acting contingently. (If you do this, then I will do that, if you do another thing, then I will do a different thing...)
I don't have to selectively read, as you do, WL, or twist to explain away these examples. I don't have to read the Bible through the lens of Plato/Aristotle, like you guys do.
We can do the verse vs. verse duello, but to what end?
"None of the words in the autographs of Scripture came as a surprise to God...and He could have ensured that they ended up different if He wanted to...so I have to assume that the words as they were originally written is just what God intended. Only He was in any position to correct any error that might have shown up in the autographs. So only he can be held responsible for any falsehoods we might find there."
But we don't have the autographs, only copies of copies of copies. With a gap of time between the earliest copy we have and the autograph.
Really? You're going to pretend like I never said anything about that already when I addressed 1 Samuel 15 and quoted the Westminster Shorter Catechism?
Of course there is more we could say here... Like how Isaiah 55:8-9 (“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.”) leads us to expect anthropomorphic language about God that is not univocal (and obviously that wouldn't be the language of God being unchanging, since that isn't a human attribute).
It's clearly your own position that cannot make sense of both texts. But I don't expect much of an actual dialogue from you. You seem satisfied to try and snipe one or two times at the other side and then disappearing without ever having to give an account for your own position: I'm still waiting for you to explain how your conception of God can intelligibly be called good given the evils in this world. You left me with a big IOU on that one... did you end up converting to atheism or... ?
"I don't have to selectively read, as you do, WL, or twist to explain away these examples. I don't have to read the Bible through the lens of Plato/Aristotle, like you guys do."
Actually, as already pointed out, you do. You seem to be using a majority rule argument...there are a lot of verses where language is applied to God, which, if applied to a time-bound man, would entail change.
There are fewer verses that entail the immutability of God.
Ergo, you throw out the verses that are in the minority.
What this shows is not that proponents of immutability pick and choose. It shows that we recognize the need to do the hard word of harmonizing the passages...even if there are more verses on one side than on another.
You make it easy on yourself by just throwing out the passages you don't like.
1 Sam 15. Read the entire chapter, not just your proof text. God regrets making Saul king. It even says it twice so that you don't miss it. Bracketing your proof text. In context, your proof text is just saying God has decided to abandon Saul and isn't going to change His mind on that, like a man might.
WL,
right back atcha. I'm not ignoring anything, just doing the hard work of harmonizing. It's just that I am "harmonizing" to the opposite conclusion, which conflicts with your Greek philosophy.
LHRM,
You know better. This isn't poetic language we're talking about.
In context, your proof text is just saying God has decided to abandon Saul and isn't going to change His mind on that, like a man might.
Somehow you missed that this is almost exactly what I said: "1 Samuel passage the first instance (God will not regret) indicates that his plan's for Saul will not be changed". I also pointed out how the change-parts of 1 Samuel 15, in context, don't contradict anything about Christian teaching on God's immutability. So you're happy to try and knock down my "proof text" by simply restating observations I've already made and yet ignore how the context might also undercut your attempt to use this passage as a proof-text against God's immutability.
Again, it seems pointless to try and dialogue with you. You're not willing to think critically about your own theology, only those to your right, which is why you've never shown how your own concept of God escapes your own criticisms of more conservative concepts of God when it comes to the problem of evil.
We agree that the Hyper-Calvinist has got it all very wrong. His theology collapses into Occasionalism whereas yours collapses into a kind of Deism vs. the peculiarity of an evolving God, an evolving Cosmic Pantheism.
Both of you find God failing to Will the Imago Dei in this one over here, and that one over there, or maybe in you, or maybe in me, or the prostitute, or the banker, or the suicidal mother of 5 children all of whom were killed in a car crash last month...... -Cause, um, -cause mutable and contingent vectors define God......
You're missing the mark on the Imago Dei, and, given such changing plans of Immutable Love usward, you're missing the mark *period*.
As if Possible Contingencies Called Worlds change the Face of God.
So you harmonize the passage, for example, that says that in Him there is no variation or any shadow of turning how? A being that changes can still satisfy this how?
You see, traditional orthodox Christians have an answer (already given above) to the question of how passages that use change-language can still be true of an immutable being.
Thus far, all I can glean from your comments here is that there is more use of change-language in the Bible than there is of immutability-language...and so...then what?
Ignore the immutability-language? Simply reject the immutability view in spite of the passages...because Plato bad? Or do we declare that the immutability-language is a later addition? Is that what your curious worry about the autographs is all about?
Immutability is a Platonic addition to Christianity.
I simply think that it can only be put forward if you ignore or explain away the many verses in the Bible portraying on of God's essential attributes as change. This was Jonah's problem with God.
"Again, it seems pointless to try and dialogue with you."
Hey, your choice. Or not, if you are a Divine Determinist...
"You're not willing to think critically about your own theology"
You mean I won't dance to your tune.
And,
YOU were the one who put forth I Samuel as a proof text for immutability. Now you walk it back. OK. Again, I Samuel, God regrets making Saul king. He changes. At one moment in time Saul was His choice. At another Saul was rejected.
Change.
But this is only a problem if you must preserve a Greek Philosophy concept; Immutability
Have you thought about how some of the early Church Fathers imported Greek Philosophy into early Christianity?
[ BTW ~ As you and all of us here belong to Christ ~Merry Christmas!]
[1] I see your point on the Hyper-Calvinist. I agree almost in full -- only -- I know several Calvinists who pull up short of such ends while retaining "TULIP" and so on (they have their own justifications for that move....) and so on their behalf I am careful to acknowledge their presence.
[2] The annihilation of God's Decree of the Imago Dei in this person over here, in that person over there, perhaps in that prostitute, or this banker, is something both you and the Hyper-Calvinist have in common. Given that such is the case, you are (here) contradicting a mammoth anthology of your own previous truth claims about God and Man. Very disappointing.
[3] Yes, you do seem to assert that God learns. Therefore the question of breathing and lungs comes back to us -- and there's no need for poetry as you initially claimed (hedged) without explaining where poetry begins and God's learning ends. In short -- where and when, and how, do you draw that line?
[4] Void of the Immutable -- you suffer the same ultimate annihilation of intelligibility which the Non-Theist suffers in the very "definition" of the word "definition". But for the immutable -- all our definitions of Truth, of the Really-Real -- suffer change -- and therein the unintelligible not only gets its toe in the door -- but ultimately takes over the whole show.
Such just is one of the fatalities of the Non-Theist's paradigm. For valid, justified, and logically lucid (metaphysical) reasons.
BTW: How it is that "immutability" in relation to Being's three vertices amid the peculiarities unique to the Christian's Triune God and to reality itself all converge to unpack this problem of "the definition of definition itself" is discussed a bit further in this thread's comment time-stamped "scbrownlhrm | December 24, 2015 at 04:15 AM"
Ignore the change language? Simply reject the change view in spite of the passages... because Plato good?
The shoe fits just as well on your foot.
Nice try...but no.
Everyone following this thread can read, my friend. And they can all see that you have made no effort to do any harmonizing of the immutability language in Scripture with your heterodox innovation of a changing God.
Instead, you simply say that immutability is a Platonic addition to Christianity. Well, that ain't harmonizing your view with the immutability-language found in Scripture. It's the flat out denial that such language exists in Scripture.
You see, no one who believes in the immutability of God denies that change-language exists in Scripture. Instead we try to understand how it can be true even though other passages use immutability-language to describe God. We also don't ignore the fact that God is the Creator of all things...including time.
On the contrary, your words apply quite strongly to yourself. You have made no effort to harmonize, simply thrown out proof texts.
"Instead, you simply say that immutability is a Platonic addition to Christianity. Well, that ain't harmonizing your view with the immutability-language found in Scripture. It's the flat out denial that such language exists in Scripture."
Nonsense. I don't deny so called "immutability language" in the Bible. What I don't do is read it as if pagan Greek philosophy were true and Scripture must be reconciled with Plato and his ilk.
"We also don't ignore the fact that God is the Creator of all things...including time."
Seems to me the problem stems from faulty or mistaken views of Predestination, God's Foreknowledge, and the notion of Dispensationalism.
Or, to put it another way, trying to read the Bible through the lens of Post-Enlightenment thinking, especially Historicism and Progressivism.
Therefore, the danger, it seems to me, is that even many Christians study their Bible through this faulty lens which brings about problems like this.
Posted by: Paul Rodden | December 21, 2015 at 04:00 AM
More interestingly, why does the Bible recount many, many instances of God changing his mind, regretting his decisions, or being persuaded?
Posted by: Phillip A | December 21, 2015 at 09:39 AM
More interestingly, why does the Bible recount many, many instances of God changing his mind, regretting his decisions, or being persuaded?
Because, undoubtedly, the God character in the Biblical books is manifested through the eyes of the writers, who cannot help but attribute human characteristics to him.
Posted by: Perry Shields | December 21, 2015 at 10:39 AM
Some of the same authors that depict God changing are the same one's that depict God as unchanging (e.g., 1 Samuel 15). So Perry's remark makes no sense. Could the authors also not help but attribute divine characteristics to him?
And since it's clearly possible to have different and compatible senses in which a person is and is not repentant or regret or change then the principle of charity dictates that we understand the authors to have different senses of repentance or regret in mind. For instance, in the 1 Samuel passage the first instance (God will not regret) indicates that his plan's for Saul will not be changed and the second instance can be understood as God's displeasure with Saul's reign.
It's an intellectually lazy atheist tactics to say that since Christians say God is "unchanging" then any instance of "change" found in the Bible attributed to God disproves that claim. A more intellectually sophisticated atheist should ask themselves "In what sense do Christians say that God is unchanging?" And then they should do some research to find out.
For instance, the Westminster Shorter Catechism spells out in exactly what way God is unchanging: "in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth" (Q & A 4). God's grief over Saul is not a change in God's wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.
Posted by: Remington | December 21, 2015 at 11:59 AM
Hi STR! Dr. Richard Holland of Liberty University wrote "God, Time and the Incarnation" surveying the leading Christian theologians on this topic and concluded that specifically *with respect to the Incarnation* the church has never openly defended its claim that God is utterly unchangeable. In my debate with theologian Dr. James White I took that insight and five times asked him about whether God the Son took upon Himself a human nature. (There's a 2-min YouTube showing those excerpts.) So far beyond the old/new covenant issue, reaching right into the heart of the Trinity, God the Son became a Man. God is unchanging in His fierce commitment to righteousness (i.e., His holiness), but because He is the Living God, He changes in immeasurable ways, including when the Son became the Son of Man.
Posted by: Bob Enyart | December 21, 2015 at 02:46 PM
Some of the same authors that depict God changing are the same one's that depict God as unchanging (e.g., 1 Samuel 15). So Perry's remark makes no sense.
Yes, it makes sense, because humans have enough insight to grasp a little of what God's unchanging nature might mean, even though we cannot fully understand it. There is no race to fully understand God's ways, because we clearly cannot. The fact that not all believers in God come to the same conclusion is evidence of the human factor, so naturally that's going to show up in the Biblical books.
Posted by: Perry Shields | December 21, 2015 at 06:18 PM
That still doesn't make it the case that the human authors "cannot help but attribute human characteristics to him."
But I've shown that the position is held by the *same* author, so again your supposition of "not all believers... com[ing] to the same conclusion" doesn't make sense. Since there is no contradiction between a single author holding the views in question, there is no reason to suppose that multiple authors could not also hold the same views together even if they only make mention of one view (e.g. God regretting).
Bob Enyart,
I have't heard the debate you refer to, but I do occasionally listen to the Dividing Line and I distinctly remember James White pointing out that your attempt to demonstrate a change in God ignores the doctrine of the hypostatic union.
Posted by: Remington | December 21, 2015 at 07:36 PM
I think I find myself in agreement with Perry this time. And, I think, Perry is agreeing with Greg in different words.
I wouldn't go so far as saying that the Biblical authors attribute human characteristics to God. Instead, I'd say that they use human language to describe Him. At one moment, his eternal and unchanging nature appears one way to humans, and they might describe it that way. At another moment, his eternal and unchanging nature appears another way, and they might describe it that way. And they might even combine those two differing descriptions using language normally used for describing change.
Imagine an equilateral triangle hovering tip down over a line. Suppose that the plane of the triangle is perpendicular to the line. Now imagine that you are moving along that line. At times, that triangle will appear to be acute, at times it will appear to be right, and at times it will appear to be obtuse. When you are closest to the triangle, i.e. looking up at the tip hovering over the line, it won't look like a triangle at all, but like a line segment. And it will never look exactly like what it is: equilateral.
You might say that the triangle flattened out as you moved along the line. Such language is not incorrect, but it is inherently relational. You are not providing a description of the inherent properties of the triangle. Instead, you are describing the changing relation you have with it.
Posted by: WisdomLover | December 22, 2015 at 04:09 AM
WL,
If what Perry meant was that the biblical authors sometimes use anthropomorphic language to describe God, then of course who would disagree with that? That's theology 101. But it's not clear whether you're agreeing with Perry or reinterpreting Perry.
The idea that the Bible sometimes uses anthropomorphic language of God is not very well captured in saying that in the Bible God "is manifested through the eyes of the writers, who cannot help but attribute human characteristics to him." As I pointed out, these same writers attribute divine characteristics (or incommunicable attributes) to God... So *clearly* they are capable of not attributing human characteristics to God at least sometimes.
Furthermore, if Perry is simply saying what you are, then his statement that "not all believers in God come to the same conclusion is evidence of the human factor, so naturally that's going to show up in the Biblical books" looks even more out of place. Whatever Perry is saying, he seems to think it results in the Bible having different (inconsistent?) conclusions about what God is like.
Posted by: Remington | December 22, 2015 at 05:59 AM
My point is that we should expect to see human attributes in God's character, for better or worse, since we are dealing with texts written by humans. Text is limited in its ability to describe spiritual concepts; it can only go so far before the flesh and blood starts to show. This is not indicative of a "fault" or "error" in the texts. As readers (and writers), we create our own meaning from texts and each see it through our own lens. The Bible is not immune. Hence, we have myriad schools of thought on a variety of subjects within Christendom.
In conclusion, we can't expect to find a perfect or complete description of God in the Bible. There will always be mystery (obviously).
Posted by: Perry Shields | December 22, 2015 at 07:39 AM
We are also dealing with texts written by a single divine author.
God, as the author of language, can make text perfectly suited to communicate exactly what God intended to.
Since God created every person with their unique qualities and properties and determined the environment in which every person would be born and shaped by nurture and culture, flesh and blood is no obstacle to God's intention to communicate.
And some of those lenses and meanings that we create are wrong, insofar as they don't align with the meaning intended by the author(s).
So let's also keep in mind that you originally started unfolding these ideas in response to Phillip's question about the *Bible*. And here it looks like you're again applying these ideas to the Bible.
So it looks like the best way to read you is as saying that there are "myriads of schools of thought" within the *Bible*. (In fact, though, it looks like you're trying to be intentionally vague here.)
But, as I've pointed out numerous times now, that conclusion is a non-sequitur if the evidence is supposed to be attributions of change to God and attributions of immutability to God, since we have instances of the very same author espousing both views and since there are easy ways to see how these two things are compatible.
And the idea that there are varying schools of thought outside of the Bible doesn't require the theory that this is owing to any attribute of the Bible. We can fully account for that data by acknowledging various traditions, biases, and motives of the audience.
Posted by: Remington | December 22, 2015 at 08:55 AM
Except what you've said fails to account for the divine author of the Bible. Given that Scripture is the word of God, we can expect to find a perfect description of God in the Bible, if we understand "perfect" to mean exactly what God intended and "perfectly" true in what it reveals about God and his works.
No theologian has ever claimed that the description of God in the Bible is "complete", so there is no reason to burn that straw-man.
Posted by: Remington | December 22, 2015 at 08:59 AM
We are also dealing with texts written by a single divine author.
...which is an opinion, not a fact, and an opinion I do not share. Sounds awfully like the view the Muslims hold of the Qur'an.
And some of those lenses and meanings that we create are wrong, insofar as they don't align with the meaning intended by the author(s)
...which we may never know, and which makes certainty of "what the Bible says" a suspect statement to me.
At any rate, thanks, but we probably cannot continue this discussion because we have different starting points. I see the Bible as ground-up, and you see it as Heaven-down.
Posted by: Perry Shields | December 22, 2015 at 02:28 PM
You've offered no reason for us to think it's "not a fact." I could just as easily state that your position "is an opinion, not a fact" and point out that despite it being your opinion (and not a fact) you've asserted it with all the confidence of a fundy in this thread.
Which demonstrates your lack of understanding of both Islamic understanding of the Quran and Evangelical understanding of plenary inspiration.
But even if we assume that Islam understands the Quran to be a product identical to the way some evangelicals understand the Bible, so what? Are you just banking on the hope that a fence sitter might be such an islamaphobe that they will be repulsed by the idea of the Bible being divinely inspired just because that's the way Muslims view the Quran? Or is it just your own islamaphobia peeking out? ;)
So the bare possibility of our being mistaken undermines certainty? Sorry, but that's not how we operate in our everyday epistemic duties. What's your argument for why we should adopt this special epistemic duty here?
Plantinga provides a model of warrant for such a starting point in his Warranted Christian belief (or his Knowledge and Christian Belief).
Posted by: Remington | December 22, 2015 at 02:44 PM
Well, I expect to see human attributes in God because of the incarnation. Not because of the limitations of human authors.
That said, language is a limited tool. God can no more make it able to express His entire nature than he can put corners on a circle.
It's just not logically possible for language to give us a complete picture of God...not even divinely inspired language.
Heck, it's not logically possible for language to give us a complete picture of just about anything. You will never, through language, provide a full picture of me let alone God.
None of the words in the autographs of Scripture came as a surprise to God...and He could have ensured that they ended up different if He wanted to...so I have to assume that the words as they were originally written is just what God intended. Only He was in any position to correct any error that might have shown up in the autographs. So only he can be held responsible for any falsehoods we might find there.
Posted by: WisdomLover | December 22, 2015 at 05:34 PM
That's fine. But again no one said that the Bible or human language gives us a complete picture of God or expresses his entire nature. Nor am I aware of any theologian (or theological camp) who makes such a claim. The question raised by Phillip that Perry responded to that sparked this discussion, from the beginning, was whether the Biblical picture of God is consistent, not whether it's exhaustive...
Posted by: Remington | December 22, 2015 at 05:54 PM
In speaking of God’s unchanging contours the following essay on the Incarnation as Trinitarian is linked to a second comment subsuming all within the fullness of God in all of our first principles.
Posted by: scbrownlhrm | December 23, 2015 at 03:27 AM
Phillips A comments,
"More interestingly, why does the Bible recount many, many instances of God changing his mind, regretting his decisions, or being persuaded?"
The Bible recounts these instances because that is what actually happened.
Greg asks,
"How Do We Reconcile an Unchanging God with the New Covenant?"
Easy Peasy. The God of the Bible changes. No need to reconcile at all.
Plato and his followers, (cough, Augustine,) are the ones who insist on an unchanging God.
Posted by: goat head 5 | December 23, 2015 at 03:47 AM
Remy,
I got a real chuckle out of your "islamophobia" blast.
Seriously?
Who couldn't get behind the "Religion of Peace"?
Posted by: goat head 5 | December 23, 2015 at 03:59 AM
WL,
You keep talking about the "autographs" of the Bible.....which we don't have.
Posted by: goat head 5 | December 23, 2015 at 04:00 AM
GH5: You keep talking about the "autographs" of the Bible.....which we don't have.
So what?
Posted by: WisdomLover | December 23, 2015 at 06:21 AM
"The God of the Bible changes."
Yes, so long as you only read the bits of the Bible that you like.
Posted by: WisdomLover | December 23, 2015 at 06:30 AM
Goat Head 5,
Yes, Augustine went back and snuck these verses into our Bibles:
He was only successful of course because we lack the autographs.
Posted by: Remington | December 23, 2015 at 07:29 AM
Nice, Remington.
Goad Head 5,
Does God get up on the wrong side of the bed every once in a while?
Posted by: KWM | December 23, 2015 at 11:40 AM
How odd a vantage point mind must perceive when Immutability reaches into the Mutable, when the Actual reaches into the Actualiz-ing.
Posted by: scbrownlhrm | December 24, 2015 at 03:03 AM
“From the highest to the lowest, self exists to be abdicated and, by that abdication, becomes the more truly self, to be thereupon yet the more abdicated, and so forever. This is not a heavenly law which we can escape by remaining earthly, nor an earthly law which we can escape by being saved. What is outside the system of self-giving is not earth, nor nature, nor 'ordinary life', but simply and solely hell. Yet even hell derives from this law such reality as it has. That fierce imprisonment in the self is but the obverse of the self-giving which is absolute reality; the negative shape which the outer darkness takes by surrounding and defining the shape of the real, or which the real imposes on the darkness by having a shape and positive nature of its own.” (C.S. Lewis)
Posted by: scbrownlhrm | December 24, 2015 at 03:05 AM
The non-repentance of Romans 11:29 and the instantiation of Christ within temporal becoming discovers the Face of God in all possible worlds:
How odd a vantage point mind must perceive when Immutability reaches into the Mutable, when the Actual reaches into the Actualiz-ing.
How is it that Uncreated Love never changes, yet, Man awakes to find himself inside of an ever-changing some-thing?
We need not fear our own side of actualization nor need we think that such is a detraction from He Who is the “Ever-Actual”.
Whatever we think the phrase vivid perception entails in the idol called Outside-Of-God, we can rest assured that inside of God our actualizations will entail far more vivid perception, and of far greater distances. This is why, as The Adamic stands amid Eden’s Possible Worlds, Satan’s promise of more sight vis-à-vis the Outside (outside of God-In-Man/Man-In-God) just is deception – for the Adamic will necessarily see farther, more, better, on the Inside (inside of God-In-Man/Man-In-God). Mutable Mind describes Immutable Mind: “God breathed into Adam’s nostrils…” we find God is void of lungs and hence cannot breathe. “Oh dear! – Tis a problem! For God hath not a lung by which to breathe!”
So too we find in Genesis 6:6 the sightline of Man, the mutable, peering into God, the immutable, and the descriptive of such in scripture is expressly anthropomorphic and this is definitional on Scripture’s own category terms as Inspiration is not Prophecy and Prophecy is not Dictation, and so on ever closer towards the thing that is “Thus Said God” as He Who Is Actuality, Who is [All-Possibilities] sees, on necessity, the [A to Z]. As always, we must take Scripture’s entire [A to Z] should we fashion definitions of God or of reality.
M.H. comments,
The same [A to Z] which justifiably gives the descriptive of God as untiring also justifiably gives the descriptive of Him wearied, and so on, for, Mutable Mind peers into the Immutable and describes the array of contour and nuance there inside of Immutable Love. God is The-Ever-Actual. That which is Actuality is the Necessary Grain of Reality, and, should Man run his fingers against that Grain, the only Grain there is, we will find Mutable Mind giving the descriptive of nuance there of Actuality “splintering man full of holes”, or other such statements.
In fact, we can almost say this regarding said splinters: Should God remain still, that is the vantage point which Mutable Mind will express of the Immutable Mind: “God splintered the man full of holes”. But of course, all God “did” was remain still, and therein God “did” just nothing at all, whereas, Man did motion, did change. There is more of course, for God is not static – but the fallacy of “Motion equals Change” simply mistakes Pure Act for Change and thus equates God’s Motion (Pure Act, Pure Actuality) to Man’s motion (actualization, change, temporal becoming).
On “change” – bear with the groundwork just a bit further:
God is innately love’s unity of Being’s vertices, of [Self-Other-Us], that is to say, Being has three unavoidable vertices which constitute the fully singular, the fully triune, which ends all regresses. The Self. The Other. The Collective Whole. Such firmly establishes love’s relational corridors amid ceaseless reciprocity as the highest ethic in all possible worlds. Therefore: We find that should Man motion out of, or, against, love’s Whole we find there the Immutable Tree with His Immutable Grain of love running in Actuality’s Direction, and, we also find Man running his hand against that grain. Herein there remains only two options for Man’s Mutable Mind to discover/perceive:
[A] Either God does nothing at all and Man finds that perception of himself getting splintered full of holes, and justifiably writes of such within the category of Inspiration, or……
[B] God moves, motions, and spares Man, and such a motion on the end of the Ever-Actual would be that thing, that perception, which Man’s mutable mind would describe as, “And God had mercy….” and so justifiably writes of such within the category of Inspiration. Immutable love need never change (does not change, ever), and therein Good never changes, and therein Evil never changes, and therein the Created Agent fully Capacitated with Will, with Volition amid Self/Other vis-à-vis the Imago Dei Willed by, decreed by, Power Himself finds at his (man’s) own fingertips there in Eden the currency of all possible worlds: love, or, lovelessness.
Therefore:
In Numbers 22:12 Love reaches into hell, into love-less-ness (as Scripture defines reality in the opening pages of Genesis vis-à-vis the Triune’s Singular-Us) and declares a law to a man. The man then motions further into hell. Love, being love, follows man into his hell in Numbers 22:20. And numbers 22:20 cannot change 22:12, thus Numbers 22:22 must be paid in full, in some vector somewhere, whether man in hell beholds it or not. Love reaches into hell in all sorts of ways, but hell is still hell and Numbers 23:19 finds Love as the Whole, the shape of which gives all things (even the Outside as the C.S. Lewis quote alludes to) the shape which they by definition have.
How odd a vantage point mind must perceive when Immutability reaches into the Mutable, when the Actual reaches into the Actualizing. While we find in this Image no Changing and no Discovering within Him, the Ever-Actual, we do find radical changing, radical discovering, in the Created, the Actualizing. We are given by God various modes of imaging by which to perceive truths about Him. While He is Unchanging, those varied vectors by which we spy His curves and contours are, necessarily, ever changing. At least for now. Perhaps forever. Time is an odd thing. [Actual], [All-Possibilities], and [Actualizing] are nearly as odd. As He nears us, as we near Him, love’s innate [Self-Other-Us], Being’s three unavoidable vertices, the fully singular and the fully triune becomes ever more Actual, and so on.
God is, unavoidably, the necessary – that is to say – God is [All-Possibilities] and Man is ever actualizing, ever discovering, whereas, God is Ever-Actual, and as Man finds himself in motion he necessarily perceives new/different contours, silhouettes, and reliefs of the [Ever-Actual] Himself. In fact, except for Immutable Love’s [Self-Other-Us] the word “definition” is itself a word without definition.
Think about that.
There is no definition but for this in relation to that, that in relation to this – and Being’s unavoidable vertices emerge as inescapably triune. The Self. The Other. The Collective Whole. Such is God. Such is love. Such is Pure Actuality.
Man is not that. Man changes.
He Who is [All-Possibility] sees, necessarily, all. This entire topography of the OT and the NT just is the narrative of Man in motion into/out-of love, of Man running with/against Actuality’s Unchanging Grain, of the Ever-Actual seeing All necessarily, and of Power’s Will to Capacitate Man with Motion in-to/out-of Self/Other – the Imago Dei. All of this is directly applicable to the verses mentioned above and, to the likes of other “difficult” verses, which are not, when housed within Scripture’s [A to Z], difficult at all, as in, say, Deuteronomy 31:16 and 21, and Deuteronomy 28:68 specifically, and, all of Deuteronomy 28 generally which is simply the descriptive of the available Ceiling and Floor inside of the Outside (inside of man’s painful privation) – what Genesis 3:16 defines as hell (on definition) on Earth pending Genesis 3:15’s Actualization within Time and Physicality there in John 3:16. This entire topography is directly applicable, also, to Deuteronomy 30:1-3, Jeremiah 12:14-17, Jeremiah 18:7-10, I Chronicles 21:15, Jonah 3:10, Exodus 32:14, the landscape of I Samuel Chap. 8 combined with Romans chap 1’s three “…so God gave them over to their wants….”, I Samuel 15:11/29, and Malachi 3:6. Finally, we see in Romans 11:29 the justified descriptive of that Motion on love’s (God’s) end, that of Pouring-Out, of Filling-Up, which we justifiably perceive as Ransom, which is, justifiably, given the descriptive of “no repentance” on the part of the Ever-Actual, for, as Man may motion in-to/out-of love’s landscape, love’s Eternally Sacrificed Self (Christ) remains Ever-Actual within the Triune’s milieu of ceaseless reciprocity.
Herein we find yet another example of the coherence of “All-Possibilities” (God) and “Unwilled Actuality” (Evil) all of which derive their very definition by and in their relational constitution to “Pure-Actuality” Who is Himself immutable love, as, but for His Timeless and Unchanging Landscape the word “definition” is itself a word without definition. In fact, but for the immutable – all our definitions must end within the unintelligible at some ontological seam somewhere. It is at such junctures where Reason as truth-finder begins to spy precisely where the metaphysical wherewithal of God, in particularly the Triune God, succeeds in doing the necessary work whereas, on all such fronts, Non-Theism collapses.
C.S. Lewis comments on the shape of the Really Real,
Posted by: scbrownlhrm | December 24, 2015 at 04:15 AM
Greg,
BTW, schedules are not immutable. So how about your Part Two on the Trinity as an early Christmas present?
Just saying ;)
Posted by: scbrownlhrm | December 24, 2015 at 04:40 AM
Remy, WL, KWM,
As you all very well know, the Bible is replete with examples of God becoming angry, changing His mind, regretting past actions, and acting contingently. (If you do this, then I will do that, if you do another thing, then I will do a different thing...)
I don't have to selectively read, as you do, WL, or twist to explain away these examples. I don't have to read the Bible through the lens of Plato/Aristotle, like you guys do.
We can do the verse vs. verse duello, but to what end?
Posted by: goat head 5 | December 24, 2015 at 05:55 AM
WL, your words:
"None of the words in the autographs of Scripture came as a surprise to God...and He could have ensured that they ended up different if He wanted to...so I have to assume that the words as they were originally written is just what God intended. Only He was in any position to correct any error that might have shown up in the autographs. So only he can be held responsible for any falsehoods we might find there."
But we don't have the autographs, only copies of copies of copies. With a gap of time between the earliest copy we have and the autograph.
Posted by: goat head 5 | December 24, 2015 at 05:57 AM
Perhaps God used his lungs to breathe too.....
Pantheism and Open Theism suffer much of the same sorts of breaking apart the wider one pushes.....
Posted by: scbrownlhrm | December 24, 2015 at 06:04 AM
Goat Head 5,
Really? You're going to pretend like I never said anything about that already when I addressed 1 Samuel 15 and quoted the Westminster Shorter Catechism?
Of course there is more we could say here... Like how Isaiah 55:8-9 (“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.”) leads us to expect anthropomorphic language about God that is not univocal (and obviously that wouldn't be the language of God being unchanging, since that isn't a human attribute).
It's clearly your own position that cannot make sense of both texts. But I don't expect much of an actual dialogue from you. You seem satisfied to try and snipe one or two times at the other side and then disappearing without ever having to give an account for your own position: I'm still waiting for you to explain how your conception of God can intelligibly be called good given the evils in this world. You left me with a big IOU on that one... did you end up converting to atheism or... ?
Posted by: Remington | December 24, 2015 at 06:28 AM
"But we don't have the autographs, only copies of copies of copies. With a gap of time between the earliest copy we have and the autograph."
Again. So What?
Posted by: WisdomLover | December 24, 2015 at 09:15 AM
"I don't have to selectively read, as you do, WL, or twist to explain away these examples. I don't have to read the Bible through the lens of Plato/Aristotle, like you guys do."
Actually, as already pointed out, you do. You seem to be using a majority rule argument...there are a lot of verses where language is applied to God, which, if applied to a time-bound man, would entail change.
There are fewer verses that entail the immutability of God.
Ergo, you throw out the verses that are in the minority.
What this shows is not that proponents of immutability pick and choose. It shows that we recognize the need to do the hard word of harmonizing the passages...even if there are more verses on one side than on another.
You make it easy on yourself by just throwing out the passages you don't like.
Posted by: WisdomLover | December 24, 2015 at 09:22 AM
"Actually, as already pointed out, you do."
This was meant as a riposte to:
"I don't have to selectively read..."
Not to:
"I don't have to read the Bible through the lens of Plato/Aristotle..."
I'm not trying to say, today, that you read through the lens of Plato/Aristotle.
Sorry for the confusing writing.
Posted by: WisdomLover | December 24, 2015 at 09:29 AM
Ok Remy,
1 Sam 15. Read the entire chapter, not just your proof text. God regrets making Saul king. It even says it twice so that you don't miss it. Bracketing your proof text. In context, your proof text is just saying God has decided to abandon Saul and isn't going to change His mind on that, like a man might.
WL,
right back atcha. I'm not ignoring anything, just doing the hard work of harmonizing. It's just that I am "harmonizing" to the opposite conclusion, which conflicts with your Greek philosophy.
LHRM,
You know better. This isn't poetic language we're talking about.
Posted by: Goat Head 5 | December 24, 2015 at 12:49 PM
GH5,
Somehow you missed that this is almost exactly what I said: "1 Samuel passage the first instance (God will not regret) indicates that his plan's for Saul will not be changed". I also pointed out how the change-parts of 1 Samuel 15, in context, don't contradict anything about Christian teaching on God's immutability. So you're happy to try and knock down my "proof text" by simply restating observations I've already made and yet ignore how the context might also undercut your attempt to use this passage as a proof-text against God's immutability.
Again, it seems pointless to try and dialogue with you. You're not willing to think critically about your own theology, only those to your right, which is why you've never shown how your own concept of God escapes your own criticisms of more conservative concepts of God when it comes to the problem of evil.
Posted by: Remington | December 24, 2015 at 01:44 PM
GH5,
If God can learn, God can learn to breathe.
No poetry is needed.
Perhaps the Incarnation is God "discovering" something He never knew, like having lungs?
Again, no poetry is needed.
Feelings of breathing being comprised of neurons and neurotransmitters, one wonders.
In other words, where and why does one draw the line?
Posted by: scbrownlhrm | December 24, 2015 at 02:00 PM
GH5,
We agree that the Hyper-Calvinist has got it all very wrong. His theology collapses into Occasionalism whereas yours collapses into a kind of Deism vs. the peculiarity of an evolving God, an evolving Cosmic Pantheism.
Both of you find God failing to Will the Imago Dei in this one over here, and that one over there, or maybe in you, or maybe in me, or the prostitute, or the banker, or the suicidal mother of 5 children all of whom were killed in a car crash last month...... -Cause, um, -cause mutable and contingent vectors define God......
You're missing the mark on the Imago Dei, and, given such changing plans of Immutable Love usward, you're missing the mark *period*.
As if Possible Contingencies Called Worlds change the Face of God.
Posted by: scbrownlhrm | December 24, 2015 at 02:29 PM
GH5-
So you harmonize the passage, for example, that says that in Him there is no variation or any shadow of turning how? A being that changes can still satisfy this how?
You see, traditional orthodox Christians have an answer (already given above) to the question of how passages that use change-language can still be true of an immutable being.
Thus far, all I can glean from your comments here is that there is more use of change-language in the Bible than there is of immutability-language...and so...then what?
Ignore the immutability-language? Simply reject the immutability view in spite of the passages...because Plato bad? Or do we declare that the immutability-language is a later addition? Is that what your curious worry about the autographs is all about?
Posted by: WisdomLover | December 25, 2015 at 10:37 AM
LHRM
Does God learn? Well, yeah, He does.
And,
A hypercalvinist is just a consistent Calvinist.
Immutability is a Platonic addition to Christianity.
Posted by: goat head 5 | December 26, 2015 at 05:10 AM
WL,
Immutability is a Platonic addition to Christianity.
I simply think that it can only be put forward if you ignore or explain away the many verses in the Bible portraying on of God's essential attributes as change. This was Jonah's problem with God.
Posted by: goat head 5 | December 26, 2015 at 05:13 AM
Remy,
"Again, it seems pointless to try and dialogue with you."
Hey, your choice. Or not, if you are a Divine Determinist...
"You're not willing to think critically about your own theology"
You mean I won't dance to your tune.
And,
YOU were the one who put forth I Samuel as a proof text for immutability. Now you walk it back. OK. Again, I Samuel, God regrets making Saul king. He changes. At one moment in time Saul was His choice. At another Saul was rejected.
Change.
But this is only a problem if you must preserve a Greek Philosophy concept; Immutability
Have you thought about how some of the early Church Fathers imported Greek Philosophy into early Christianity?
Posted by: goat head 5 | December 26, 2015 at 05:22 AM
WL,
"Ignore the immutability-language? Simply reject the immutability view in spite of the passages...because Plato bad?"
Right back atcha.
Ignore the change language? Simply reject the change view in spite of the passages... because Plato good?
The shoe fits just as well on your foot.
Posted by: goat head 5 | December 26, 2015 at 05:24 AM
GH5,
[ BTW ~ As you and all of us here belong to Christ ~Merry Christmas! ]
[1] I see your point on the Hyper-Calvinist. I agree almost in full -- only -- I know several Calvinists who pull up short of such ends while retaining "TULIP" and so on (they have their own justifications for that move....) and so on their behalf I am careful to acknowledge their presence.
[2] The annihilation of God's Decree of the Imago Dei in this person over here, in that person over there, perhaps in that prostitute, or this banker, is something both you and the Hyper-Calvinist have in common. Given that such is the case, you are (here) contradicting a mammoth anthology of your own previous truth claims about God and Man. Very disappointing.
[3] Yes, you do seem to assert that God learns. Therefore the question of breathing and lungs comes back to us -- and there's no need for poetry as you initially claimed (hedged) without explaining where poetry begins and God's learning ends. In short -- where and when, and how, do you draw that line?
Posted by: scbrownlhrm | December 26, 2015 at 06:10 AM
[4] Void of the Immutable -- you suffer the same ultimate annihilation of intelligibility which the Non-Theist suffers in the very "definition" of the word "definition". But for the immutable -- all our definitions of Truth, of the Really-Real -- suffer change -- and therein the unintelligible not only gets its toe in the door -- but ultimately takes over the whole show.
Such just is one of the fatalities of the Non-Theist's paradigm. For valid, justified, and logically lucid (metaphysical) reasons.
BTW: How it is that "immutability" in relation to Being's three vertices amid the peculiarities unique to the Christian's Triune God and to reality itself all converge to unpack this problem of "the definition of definition itself" is discussed a bit further in this thread's comment time-stamped "scbrownlhrm | December 24, 2015 at 04:15 AM"
Posted by: scbrownlhrm | December 26, 2015 at 07:32 AM
Does God have a limit on how much he can learn?
What limits it?
How can his capacity to change, to learn, be unlimited? Isn't that just another way of talking about the truly amorphous?
What do we suppose was God's first learning experience? Could there have been a first?
Will there be a last? Can there be a last?
------------------------------
These are valid metaphysical questions given the essence of the present claims.
Posted by: scbrownlhrm | December 26, 2015 at 07:43 AM
Everyone following this thread can read, my friend. And they can all see that you have made no effort to do any harmonizing of the immutability language in Scripture with your heterodox innovation of a changing God.
Instead, you simply say that immutability is a Platonic addition to Christianity. Well, that ain't harmonizing your view with the immutability-language found in Scripture. It's the flat out denial that such language exists in Scripture.
You see, no one who believes in the immutability of God denies that change-language exists in Scripture. Instead we try to understand how it can be true even though other passages use immutability-language to describe God. We also don't ignore the fact that God is the Creator of all things...including time.
Posted by: WisdomLover | December 26, 2015 at 09:04 AM
Some Answers for LHRM:
Does God have a limit on how much he can learn?
How would I know such a thing?
What limits it?
Again, how would I know this?
How can his capacity to change, to learn, be unlimited? Isn't that just another way of talking about the truly amorphous?
I have no idea, does it need to be?
and , no.
What do we suppose was God's first learning experience? Could there have been a first?
How would we know either of these things?
Will there be a last? Can there be a last?
Again, how could we know?
LHRM, where has God revealed these things to us?
Posted by: goat head 5 | December 26, 2015 at 10:36 AM
WL,
"Nice try...but no."
On the contrary, your words apply quite strongly to yourself. You have made no effort to harmonize, simply thrown out proof texts.
"Instead, you simply say that immutability is a Platonic addition to Christianity. Well, that ain't harmonizing your view with the immutability-language found in Scripture. It's the flat out denial that such language exists in Scripture."
Nonsense. I don't deny so called "immutability language" in the Bible. What I don't do is read it as if pagan Greek philosophy were true and Scripture must be reconciled with Plato and his ilk.
"We also don't ignore the fact that God is the Creator of all things...including time."
Uh....So?
Posted by: goat head 5 | December 26, 2015 at 10:43 AM