“Absolute” Immutability Examined

The classical understanding of divine immutability (DI), which I have been calling position 1 (P1) is not without its challenges. This, however, does not distinguish it from any other theological concept. God’s word always presents us with difficulties. In the first place, God’s like really, really big – infinite, unbounded, filling heaven and earth, and here we are, barely able to balance our checkbooks, trying to wrap our minds around God. In short, DI is difficult because it should be. Specifically, the unchanging God is simply not like us. We are accustomed (because that ALL we have even known) to people who change their minds and lie. God says that he’s just like that: “God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?” (Num 23:19). The world and everything around us (all creation) changes and passes away, but God is just like that: see Psalm 102:26-8. In a word, God’s not like anything we know in the created order, and that specifically with regard to his immutability.

Now, when God speaks to us, he does so in order that we should understand.

Read Full Post »

Problems with ‘Limited’ Immutability

In the last post (A Tale of Two Immutabilities), I presented two very different understandings of divine immutability (DI). The first position (P1) could be called “absolute” or “strong” immutability, while the second position (P2) could be called “limited” or “weak” immutability. (BTW, the term “weak” is used in theological jargon for a softened or easier view, while “strong” is used for a more fulsome or higher-stakes version. It’s not at all meant to be an insult!) In this post, I want to present a critique of P2. I think there are both exegetical and logical problems with this position.

Exegetically, I think that the P2 position works with faulty hermeneutics. P2 would maintain, as Bloesch does, that the Bible speaks of God’s repenting and that it ought not be taken “metaphorically.” Okay. Well, by analogy, the Bible speak of God as having hands (1 Pet 5:6), arms (Is 53:1), and wings (Ps 1:4). The reason that sane Bible interpreters don’t think that God actually has these physical parts is that the Bible also clearly teaches that God is spirit (Jn 4:24), and that spirit is incorporeal or without body (Lk 24:39). Thus, the hermeneutical principle at play is that the clear, theological, didactic articulations about God are to guide other assertions about God.

This principle should never be used to say that the biblical language concerning, say, God’s hands is mere metaphor and teaches us nothing. Far from it! As humans, we know the security and comfort of a strong hand. Well, God’s like that; he has strong hands, but don’t be so foolish as to think that he has physical hands. Similarly, when it’s said that God “repents,” this ought to be interpreted by biblical texts that explicitly deny that God actually repents, changes his mind, or regrets his actions (Num. 23:19; 1 Sam 15:29). To predicate a change of mind to God is, on a hermeneutical/exegetical level, just like saying that God actually has hands. As with the biblical language concerning his body parts, there is much to learn from God’s repentance. For example, we learn that our sin is displeasing to him, that he will punish wickedness, and even that his judgment starts in his own house. In the same way that a parent might say, “I know we were planning to go to Chucky Cheese, but now we’re not going to go because of your bad attitude,” God is said to change his mind, but please don’t think that there’s an actual change in God! In exactly the same way, God’s “increase” in knowledge should not be taken as applying to him properly, but by way of metaphor and accommodated revelation. While, say, Thomas Aquinas is obscure or difficult to understand in his theological precision, God speaks to us so that we (even a child) can understand. Praise him for that! For example, God is certainly omniscient – he knows everything (Is 46:9-10), but still God is revealed as “learning”: e.g., Gen. 22:12. Are we to suppose that God didn’t know that Abraham feared him until he was about to sacrifice Isaac? Of course not. Though it is edifying to speak of God testing us to find out what we’re made of, we wouldn’t predicate an increase of knowledge to God properly. I feel like I’m laboring this point. But I hope it’s worth the labor, for this hermeneutical principle is fundamental to proper Bible interpretation. And it’s this same principle on which P2 stumbles.

Aristotle's Vulcan Son

In addition to the exegetical problem with P2, there are also a few logical problems. The first problem that one comes across can be (over)stated like this: “The immutable God changes.” Stated in this way, we have an obvious contradiction. However, if we state it this way: “The immutable God changes in ways not out of keeping with his immutability,” we no longer have a contradiction. What we have instead is either a violation of the logical law of excluded middle or at least some significant equivocation. It’s like this: God is either immutable or he’s not. But if his “immutability” includes change, then why call it immutability? To me, this is akin to saying that God is holy, but that he can be unholy in certain ways. How is “limited” holiness perfect holiness? Certainly whatever attributes God has, he as them in perfection. Thus, can the perfectly holy God be unholy in certain ways? Can perfectly eternal God somehow be limited in time? Can God be perfect truth and yet sometimes untrue? In the same way, can he be perfectly immutable and still change? What we have with P2 is an “immutability” that simply ought not be called such. This is why Karl Barth preferred to discard the church’s long-standing language of immutability: “Barth, in his discussion of the perfections of God,” reports Donald Bloesch, “replaces the classical term immutability with constancy (Bestandigkeit). This means that God is true to himself or self-consistent; he remains faithful even when men are faithless” (Bloesch, 1:28). Barth’s course seems reckless, but at least his articulation aims at clarity.

Moreover, it is commonly held that one’s understanding of DI is dependent upon one’s doctrine of God’s character. So, if God is supremely and absolutely perfect, it is impossible that he should change in any way, whatever. For if he changes to become better, then he was imperfect prior. If he changes to become worse, then he’s changing into something imperfect. Thus, our thinking about DI is necessarily rooted in our thinking about divine perfection generally. Adam Co, a proponent of some sort of P2 theory, retorts that not all change is “value” change. Following Bruce Ware, he posits that there can be “value-neutral” change, and that such change would be possible for God. The curious notion of “value-neutral” change seems quite impossible, because the value of a change must always be measured in terms of the nature of the change. E.g., a man grows by two inches. That doesn’t make this man better morally (as tallness is not a moral issue), but it does make him greater in terms of height. Thus, there’s always some value associated with change. Since God is perfect in all his attributes, in what way could he change? In what value could he increase? If he decreased in any attribute, he’d be less than perfect. This would still apply to divine attributes that are not “moral” attributes, like his immensity. What if God didn’t fill heaven and earth, but only 99% of them, but changed to fill them 100%? This increase in God’s filling creation would render him “better” or “greater” at being immense, which is most certainly a value change, just not a moral one.

We conclude that if one holds that God can learn, grow, experience new things, or (in short) change in any way at all in himself, then one does significant damage to the doctrine of God’s perfection. This kind of damage is evident in Bloesch’s language regarding DI. You will recall that Bloesch, in particular, locates DI in God’s “innermost being.” What, may I ask, is God’s “innermost being”? In classical theological parlance, “innermost being” is perfectly pleonastic. Since God is simple, his being is absolutely indivisible. God has no parts, so what possibly could be meant by “innermost” being? What is the “innermost being” being distinguished from? This is a terrific theological error that causes the classic doctrine of God to unravel.

P1 is the preferred understanding of DI, therefore, because it exegetically superior to P2, because its cogency is superior to P2, and because P1 maintains the classical doctrine of God, while P2 damages that doctrine significantly.

I am aware that there are some difficulties with P1, as well. I hope to deal with these difficulties, including “relational changes,” in a later post.

Read Full Post »

A Tale of Two Immutabilities

I’ll grant right up front that this topic will be pushing it from some bloggers; I’m good with that. We all need to stretch ourselves and grow. God calls us to grow up, specifically in doctrine. Part of the context of that doctrinal growth is the loving brotherhood of Christians (Eph. 4:11-16). Thus, I think I will lay out a substantial theological difference that really does matter. After all, how we think about God matters. It matters to God, and it bears fruit in our lives. All that said, I want to present these views as honestly as I can. I don’t want to misrepresent anyone, nor do I want to drop bombs and calling brothers big, fat hairy-tics. I want to press forward in love and in the truth of God’s word, and I want to do that together with you. Alright? Good. Let’s rock. What I want to do in this post is present position 1 (P1) on the doctrine of divine immutability (DI), which is my position. Then, I want to present position 2 (P2), which is not my position. In the next post, I want to present some objections to P2 and show how P1 is the superior position. In later posts (I know, you’re all on pins and needles), I want to present some of the common objection to P1 and handle them.

P1 maintains that God literally cannot change. It says that any change at all in God is completely impossible. See my prior post on the biblical basis for the doctrine of divine for the biblical texts to which all positions appeal. Mal.3:6, for example, says, “I, Yahweh, do not change, therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed.” The theological assertion here is simple and clear: God does not change; he is immutable. The question, of course, to be asked is what is meant by that assertion. P1 understands this in a very plain (if deeply profound) way – that is, no change whatever can be properly predicated to God. We might speak in human terms of God changing, but we wouldn’t ever properly assign change to God.

James Arminius

People could mistakenly assign changes to God in all sorts of ways. God could be supposed to change in his nature (now good, now evil; or now infinite, now finite), in his existence (having a beginning, an end, or moving through time), in his knowledge or awareness (God learning things), or in his works (God moves from potential into act). P1 maintains that none of these (nor any other conceivable) changes should be properly predicated to God. James Arminius, for example, describes DI as that divine attribute “by which it [God's being] is void of all change; of being transferred from place to place, because it is itself its own end and good, and because it is immense; of generation and corruption; of alteration; of increase and decrease; for the same reason as that by which it is incapable of suffering (Works of Arminius in 3 vols, repr. Baker, 1996, 2:116). P1 covers all the bases – there is absolutely nothing that can be changed in God: “By the immutability of God we mean that in essence, attributes, consciousness, and will God is unchangeable” (Henry Clarence Thiessen, Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Eerdmans, 1956, pg. 127). God is famously described as infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth (Westminster Shorter Catechism #4).

Dr. Donald G. Bloesch

Okay, so we have P1 under our belts, so what about P2? I’ll take Donald Bloesch as a proponent of what I’m calling P2. I’ll let him speak for himself, then I’ll make some comments that might help sharpen and clarify what he is saying. Bloesch asserts,

God’s sovereignty means that he is immutable. He does not change in his innermost being and in his ultimate vision and purpose for the world…. God remains faithful to his promises; he will not swerve from the plan that he has for the nations and his people….” (Donald G. Bloesch, Essentials of Evangelical Theology, in 2 volumes, repr., Prince Press, 1998, 1:27)

Bloesch continues:

Yet God is not the unchangeable, as philosophers understand this. For the Greeks, God’s immutability means that he is immobile, in which case we no longer have a truly sovereign God. We concur with Barth… It is interesting to note that the phrase ‘God repented’ frequently appears in the Old Testament (cf. Exod. 32; 14; 2 Sam 24:26; 1 Chron. 21:15; Jer. 26:19; Jon. 3:10). Some theologians maintain that this can be taken only metaphorically, but I believe that it points to the truth that God has the freedom to change his mind or the ways in which he deals with his people, though he remains inflexible in his ultimate purpose for them. God is not immobile, but he is immutable at least in several basic senses: he is unchanging in his basic purposes; his being is indestructible; and his promises are inviolable. (1:27-28)

Now, I’d like to make some comments that, I hope, will clarify the P2 position without obscuring or misrepresenting it. In the first comment, Bloesch roots his notion of DI in a broader concept of God’s character. Please note that P1 does exactly the same thing. How one thinks of God broadly will dictate (to a significant degree) how one handles the various characteristics attributed to him in Scripture, including immutability. Most importantly, we see Bloesch identify some specific areas wherein God does not change: his “innermost being,” his “ultimate vision and purpose for the world,” and his promises. Where P1 maintains that DI is unlimited (he simply doesn’t change), P2 wants to zero in on some particular aspects of God’s being, plan, and works without extending the immutability to other areas. This “limitation” in DI is drawn from various passages in which God is said to repent or change his mind. If God can change his mind or his immediate plan of action, P2 maintains, then DI doesn’t mean that God is absolutely unchanging. While P2 adherents may disagree with this or that aspect of what God can change, I think most will agree that God can change in knowledge and/or experience, in his immediate plans and/or actions, and in his relations with creation. P2 places a high premium on the “freedom” of God. He’s free to do what he needs to do to accomplish his “ultimate vision and purpose for the world.” Changes in the small stuff are not a big deal, because God will make sure, in the end, to accomplish what he wants.

So, we have before us two immutabilities. I hope I’ve made them clear and presented them without error. It ought to be clear enough that these two conceptions of DI are quite different from one another, and are ultimately incompatible. In the next post, then, I hope to present some of the difficulties with P2 and demonstrate how P1 is superior.

Read Full Post »

Immutability – Biblical Basis

One thing that I came to love in seminary was the classical, old, strong articulations of theology proper. By that I mean that one of my professors in particular (Dr. J.) instilled in me a deep love for the doctrine of God, as based in the divine revelation of Scripture and as understood and articulated by the church. The classic articulations about God’s nature have recently been challenged (in association with some discussion on some of the theological problems with Arminianism) by some brothers, both Calvinistic and Arminian. These challenges have more or less blown my mind by how much they were willing to negotiate with some fundamental biblical/theological concepts, like immutability, simplicity, and aseity.

Your reaction to these words, kind reader, might be: “Sheesh, bucko. Why does theology have to come packaged in words that no one understands?” That, I have to admit, is a fine question. Part of it has to do with the specialization of knowledge: jargon is developed in every discipline, including theology. That said, the difficult words represent concepts that will be immediately recognized as biblical. Immutability means, of course, that God doesn’t change. Divine simplicity is that God is radically one – absolutely indivisible. Divine aseity has to do with God being “from himself,” or entirely self-sufficient. Now, there are strong, old articulations of these biblical truths that, from time to time, are attacked or denied. I want to take the easiest of these (immutability) as our example and test case. I’ll have a couple/few posts on this topic, so as to keep them bite-sized – how blog posts should be.

 

Does God change?

The doctrine of divine immutability (DI) is based upon numerous texts, including the following (I’ve simply lifted these from Robert Reymond):

 

• Num 23:19 - God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?
• 1 Sam 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 (compare with vs. 11).
• Ps 102:26 - They [heaven and earth] will perish, but you will remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will change them like a robe, and they will pass away.
• Mal 3:6 - For I, Yahweh, do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed.
• 2 Tim 2:13 - if we are faithless, he remains faithful— for he cannot deny himself.
• Heb 6:17-8 - So when God desired to show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose, he guaranteed it with an oath, so that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us.
• 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.

So, our job is to bring these texts together (and others, as they apply) and try to understand them. That’s, after all, what the discipline of theology is – our understanding of what God’s revealed.

There are a couple things to be kept in mind with regard to our understanding of the DI:

1) God is NOT LIKE US. That’s what Numbers 23 has to say. People change their minds and lie, but God is not like us. This is true to the extent that there’s no being like God in his immutability. We live in a constantly changing world, so DI is going to be difficult for us to understand. DI is foreign, and, as such, we may even initially have some aversion to it. Press on! This doctrine is glorious and foundational; it pays big dividends.

2) God himself does not change. DI ought not be construed to mean only that God’s faithful to his word and/or promises. God is unchanging and unchangeable in himself. It follows from his character that his word and promises are trustworthy and true. Malachi teaches this: “For I, Yahweh, do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed.” James teaches us the same thing, that is, in God there is no variation or shadow due to change: God is changeless.

In the next week or so, I hope to explore some of the classic understanding and articulation of DI and to look at some modern reworking of the doctrine. I hope to show how the classic understanding holds closer to the Bible and is more intelligible. In short, I want to show you that the classic understanding is biblical and that it makes sense. Come on back for more.

Read Full Post »