I've been doing some reading and studying lately. Much of which is in response to some rather wacky arguments that I've been confronted with concerning the issue of divine immutability. I had someone actually attempt to argument that the doctrine of divine immutability logically required the belief that God changes in some ways; that divine immutability implies divine mutability. That argument, as presented, was just as weird as that makes it sound. It was presented as a kind of paradoxical antinomy where the idea that God changes doesn't disprove immutability but supports is and even proves it.
I had never experienced such an argument and insisted that the person presenting it was lying and just making it up. I was subsequently banned from the site for doing so (of course) but it prompted me to do some research into the idea to see whether there was some obscure school of thought that actually did teach such a thing. I could find no evidence that such a goofy doctrine is actually a real thing and so, as per usual, the liar gets to continue participating on a Christian forum while the guy calling the liar out for telling lies is removed. Just so pathetically typical!
At any rate, there is a silver lining. My research has spawned the following essay. I've got some other stuff that attempts to establish the fact that the doctrines taught by Augustine and then also Luther and Calvin are totally dependent on an absolute divine immutability, so called "ontological immutability", which includes such concepts as God's existence outside of time and other related concepts, but for those on this forum, it seems like it's not really necessary to do all that and so I wrote the following instead.
The Nature of Divine Changeability
The traditional doctrine asserting that God is wholly immutable and simple—a being devoid of parts and unchanging—is widely upheld within classical metaphysics, particularly in the thought of Augustine and the Neoplatonic and Aristotelian traditions. However, this perspective deserves reconsideration in light of key events in Christian theology, particularly the incarnation of Christ, His death and resurrection, and His acquisition of a glorified body. These events illustrate that God is not ontologically immutable; rather, they point to a God who actively engages with creation, experiences change, and transforms in meaningful ways.
The Incarnation as Divine Engagement
The doctrine of the incarnation posits that God took on human form in the person of Jesus Christ. This event signifies a profound change in the divine nature. By entering into humanity, God assumed a physical body and experienced human limitations, emotions, not to mention a decidedly temporal existence. This radical transformation challenges the notion of divine immutability. If God can embody human nature and enter into history, He demonstrates a willingness to adapt and engage with creation in a new and dynamic way.
Argument:
Death and Resurrection as Transformative Events
Similarly, the death and resurrection of Christ present a clear instance of divine change. In the act of dying, God experiences the ultimate human condition—death—resulting in a genuine transformation. The resurrection marks not only a return to life but an elevation to a new state of being, where Christ acquires a glorified body. This is not mere symbolic change; it signifies a real, transformative process in the divine existence.
Argument:
The Acquisition of a Glorified Body
The concept of Christ acquiring a glorified body further illustrates the dynamic nature of the divine. After His resurrection, Christ’s glorified state signifies a change in His being, where He now exists in a form that is transcendent yet still retains His humanity. This event reveals that divine nature is capable of change while still maintaining the core identity of the divine.
Argument:
Divine Change and Relationship
The relational aspect of God’s engagement with creation further supports the argument for divine changeability. God’s interactions with humanity throughout history—including the covenantal and/or dispensational relationships depicted in Scripture—demonstrate a God who is responsive and adaptive. These interactions indicate that God’s nature is not static; rather, it is characterized by a dynamic interplay with creation that allows for genuine change.
Argument:
The Redefinition of Perfection
Finally, the understanding of perfection must be reexamined in light of divine changeability. Traditional philosophy often equates perfection with wholeness and immutability; however, it is plausible to argue that a perfect being can also be one who actively engages with the world and undergoes change in meaningful ways. This perspective reframes perfection as not merely static completeness but as the capacity to relate, transform, and fulfill the dynamic needs of creation.
Argument:
Conclusion: Reconsidering Divine Changeability and Its Implications for Key Doctrines
Upon examining the nature of God in light of the incarnation, death, resurrection, and the glorified body of Christ, we must confront the profound reality that God is not ontologically immutable. The implications of this assertion reverberate through numerous doctrines that shape our understanding of the divine.
Divine Simplicity Reconsidered
If God is capable of genuine change, the doctrine of divine simplicity—the idea that God is without parts, wholly unchangeable, and self-sufficient—becomes untenable. For God to have taken on human form, suffered, and undergone transformation suggests that the divine essence can embrace relational dynamics and real experiences. Thus, the doctrine of divine simplicity obscures the richness of God’s engagement with creation and the complexity inherent in His nature.
Predestination and Sovereignty
The concept of divine sovereignty, intertwined with predestination and exhaustive foreknowledge, also comes into question. If God is actively involved in the unfolding narrative of creation and responds to human actions, the static, predetermined notions of predestination fails to capture the reality of a relational God. Instead, we must consider a model where divine sovereignty accommodates human freedom and genuine interaction, suggesting that God’s foreknowledge is not simply a matter of observing a predetermined script but is dynamically engaged in the process of creation and in His relationships with and within that creation.
Relational Dynamics in Theology (Impassibility)
The changeable nature of God invites a reevaluation of how we approach the relational dynamics of divine theology. If God is involved in the lives of His creation, His interactions can reflect genuine emotional engagement and response. This relational understanding provides a richer perspective on prayer, worship, and divine action in the world, emphasizing that God’s nature is not static but loving and responsive and actively involved in the human experience.
Perfection as Engagement
Finally, the notion of perfection must evolve from Plato's static completeness to a definition that embraces dynamic engagement with creation. A perfect God is one who not only embodies the fullness of existence but also interacts with His creation in meaningful ways. This challenges the traditional understanding of perfection as immutable oneness, opening the door to a more profound appreciation of divine love, mercy, responsiveness and relationship.
Clete
(9/30/2024)
(While the above content was authored by me, ChatGPT was used to edit it. Minor changes in grammar and the specific format in which it is presented is all that was altered.)
I had never experienced such an argument and insisted that the person presenting it was lying and just making it up. I was subsequently banned from the site for doing so (of course) but it prompted me to do some research into the idea to see whether there was some obscure school of thought that actually did teach such a thing. I could find no evidence that such a goofy doctrine is actually a real thing and so, as per usual, the liar gets to continue participating on a Christian forum while the guy calling the liar out for telling lies is removed. Just so pathetically typical!
At any rate, there is a silver lining. My research has spawned the following essay. I've got some other stuff that attempts to establish the fact that the doctrines taught by Augustine and then also Luther and Calvin are totally dependent on an absolute divine immutability, so called "ontological immutability", which includes such concepts as God's existence outside of time and other related concepts, but for those on this forum, it seems like it's not really necessary to do all that and so I wrote the following instead.
The Nature of Divine Changeability
The traditional doctrine asserting that God is wholly immutable and simple—a being devoid of parts and unchanging—is widely upheld within classical metaphysics, particularly in the thought of Augustine and the Neoplatonic and Aristotelian traditions. However, this perspective deserves reconsideration in light of key events in Christian theology, particularly the incarnation of Christ, His death and resurrection, and His acquisition of a glorified body. These events illustrate that God is not ontologically immutable; rather, they point to a God who actively engages with creation, experiences change, and transforms in meaningful ways.
The Incarnation as Divine Engagement
The doctrine of the incarnation posits that God took on human form in the person of Jesus Christ. This event signifies a profound change in the divine nature. By entering into humanity, God assumed a physical body and experienced human limitations, emotions, not to mention a decidedly temporal existence. This radical transformation challenges the notion of divine immutability. If God can embody human nature and enter into history, He demonstrates a willingness to adapt and engage with creation in a new and dynamic way.
Argument:
- The incarnation reflects a genuine change in God’s relationship with creation.
- By becoming human, God experiences life as we do, indicating that He is not confined to a static existence.
- Therefore, the incarnation suggests that God is ontologically mutable.
Death and Resurrection as Transformative Events
Similarly, the death and resurrection of Christ present a clear instance of divine change. In the act of dying, God experiences the ultimate human condition—death—resulting in a genuine transformation. The resurrection marks not only a return to life but an elevation to a new state of being, where Christ acquires a glorified body. This is not mere symbolic change; it signifies a real, transformative process in the divine existence.
Argument:
- The death of Christ is a profound alteration of God’s experience, demonstrating that He can undergo the deepest aspects of human reality.
- The resurrection represents a significant change, elevating Christ to a new, glorified existence that is not static.
- Therefore, these events support the idea that God is not immutable but rather responsive to the unfolding narrative of creation.
The Acquisition of a Glorified Body
The concept of Christ acquiring a glorified body further illustrates the dynamic nature of the divine. After His resurrection, Christ’s glorified state signifies a change in His being, where He now exists in a form that is transcendent yet still retains His humanity. This event reveals that divine nature is capable of change while still maintaining the core identity of the divine.
Argument:
- The glorified body of Christ is a tangible representation of change within the divine nature, indicating that God is not bound by the constraints of immutability.
- This acquisition of a glorified body suggests that God’s essence allows for transformation and development in relation to creation.
- Therefore, the traditional view of God as wholly immutable fails to account for these significant changes.
Divine Change and Relationship
The relational aspect of God’s engagement with creation further supports the argument for divine changeability. God’s interactions with humanity throughout history—including the covenantal and/or dispensational relationships depicted in Scripture—demonstrate a God who is responsive and adaptive. These interactions indicate that God’s nature is not static; rather, it is characterized by a dynamic interplay with creation that allows for genuine change.
Argument:
- A God who engages in a dynamic relationship with creation cannot be wholly immutable, as such engagement implies responsiveness and adaptation.
- Change in response to human actions and prayers suggests a God who is relational and involved in the unfolding narrative of existence.
- Therefore, the relational aspect of God challenges the traditional notions of divine immutability and simplicity.
The Redefinition of Perfection
Finally, the understanding of perfection must be reexamined in light of divine changeability. Traditional philosophy often equates perfection with wholeness and immutability; however, it is plausible to argue that a perfect being can also be one who actively engages with the world and undergoes change in meaningful ways. This perspective reframes perfection as not merely static completeness but as the capacity to relate, transform, and fulfill the dynamic needs of creation.
Argument:
- If God can change and still maintain His essence, then perfection can include the ability to adapt and engage with creation.
- The events of the incarnation, death, and resurrection illustrate a dynamic perfection that embraces the fullness of human experience.
- Therefore, redefining perfection allows for a God who is not bound by immutability but is fully engaged with the unfolding story of creation.
Conclusion: Reconsidering Divine Changeability and Its Implications for Key Doctrines
Upon examining the nature of God in light of the incarnation, death, resurrection, and the glorified body of Christ, we must confront the profound reality that God is not ontologically immutable. The implications of this assertion reverberate through numerous doctrines that shape our understanding of the divine.
Divine Simplicity Reconsidered
If God is capable of genuine change, the doctrine of divine simplicity—the idea that God is without parts, wholly unchangeable, and self-sufficient—becomes untenable. For God to have taken on human form, suffered, and undergone transformation suggests that the divine essence can embrace relational dynamics and real experiences. Thus, the doctrine of divine simplicity obscures the richness of God’s engagement with creation and the complexity inherent in His nature.
Predestination and Sovereignty
The concept of divine sovereignty, intertwined with predestination and exhaustive foreknowledge, also comes into question. If God is actively involved in the unfolding narrative of creation and responds to human actions, the static, predetermined notions of predestination fails to capture the reality of a relational God. Instead, we must consider a model where divine sovereignty accommodates human freedom and genuine interaction, suggesting that God’s foreknowledge is not simply a matter of observing a predetermined script but is dynamically engaged in the process of creation and in His relationships with and within that creation.
Relational Dynamics in Theology (Impassibility)
The changeable nature of God invites a reevaluation of how we approach the relational dynamics of divine theology. If God is involved in the lives of His creation, His interactions can reflect genuine emotional engagement and response. This relational understanding provides a richer perspective on prayer, worship, and divine action in the world, emphasizing that God’s nature is not static but loving and responsive and actively involved in the human experience.
Perfection as Engagement
Finally, the notion of perfection must evolve from Plato's static completeness to a definition that embraces dynamic engagement with creation. A perfect God is one who not only embodies the fullness of existence but also interacts with His creation in meaningful ways. This challenges the traditional understanding of perfection as immutable oneness, opening the door to a more profound appreciation of divine love, mercy, responsiveness and relationship.
Exodus 33:11a So the Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend.
2 Chronicles 20:7 Are You not our God, who drove out the inhabitants of this land before Your people Israel, and gave it to the descendants of Abraham Your friend forever?
Isaiah 41:8 “But you, Israel, are My servant,
Jacob whom I have chosen,
The descendants of Abraham My friend
John 15:15 No longer do I call you servants, for a servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I heard from My Father I have made known to you.
Clete
(9/30/2024)
(While the above content was authored by me, ChatGPT was used to edit it. Minor changes in grammar and the specific format in which it is presented is all that was altered.)
