Introduction
The apostle Paul affirms that Man everywhere know who God is because God
has made it plain to them.[1] Even those who do not have
special revelation as the Jews have some consciousness of God’s invincible
attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature but have suppressed the
truth by their unrighteousness and failed to honour him as God. Born from this
suppression is the endless form of idolatry of man’s supposed knowledge of who
God is, manifesting itself in the Athenian inscription to the “unknown god”.[2] The apostle made clear the
magnitude of their error and boldly proclaimed the truth and nature of who God
is given the Athenians an opportunity to be saved. This essay will briefly
highlight the essential nature of God as revealed in the bible and then discuss
whether it can be argued from the bible whether God changes.
Andrew S. Kulikovsky in his
article[3] the Nature of God presents
ten essential attributes which constitutes God’s nature. The ten attributes
listed by Kulikovsky are also agreed on by other theologians such as Wayne
Grudem presenting similar attributes in his Bible doctrine and A.W Pink in his
classical work The attributes of God writes in agreement.[4]
The Ten essential attributes of God’s nature according to Kulikovsky are:
Spiritual
Self existence and Eternal
Personal
Triune
Immanent and Transcendent
Finite and Infinite
Immutable
Omnipresent
Omniscient
Omnipotent
These attributes listed by Kulikovsky are founded upon biblical text as
revealed in the bible. For example in John 4:24, Jesus declares that “God is
Spirit” and therefore his worshipers must worship him in “spirit and in truth.”
This predicate is clearly adjectival and indicates that God is essentially
spiritual.[5] Thus, God does not have a
physical body, nor is he made of any kind of matter like much of the rest of
creation.
God’s self existence and eternality can be found in biblical texts such
as Psalm 102:24-27 which states:
“O my God, I say, take me not away in the midst of my days -- you whose
years endure throughout all generations! Of old you laid the foundation of the
earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.
They 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, but you are
the same, and your years have no end”.
Moses tells us that God existed before there was any creation: “Before
the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the
world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God.”[6]
The grounds of God’s existence is himself, being from all eternity
self-sufficient possessing no deficiencies or lacking in happiness. God is not
dependent upon any part of creation for his existence or nature while the rest
of creation are entirely dependant on him.
The doctrine of the triune God or trinity is used to summarise the
teaching of scripture that God is three persons yet one God. The doctrine of
the trinity may be defined as follows: God eternally exists as three persons,
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and each person is fully God, and there is one
God. This definition is based on numerous biblical texts such as Genesis 1:26,
Isaiah 6:8, Psalm 45:6, John 1:1, Hebrews 1:8, Matthew 28:19, 1 Corinthians
12:4-6, 2Corinthians 13:14. Because God is triune He is therefore relational.
This triune God creates humanity in his own image endowing humans with personality
which demands a personal creator.
God’s Immanent and transcendence are rooted in the following biblical
text Haggai 2:5, John 14-16, Isaiah 55:8-9 and Psalm 113:5-6. God’s Immanent is
meant as God’s presence and activity within nature, human nature and history.
God’s transcendence implies that God is separate from and independent of nature
and humanity.[7]
The three Omni’s borrowed from the Latin term “all” are attributes which
states that God is “all” present, has “all” knowledge and is “all” powerful.
The Psalmist writes ‘where can I go from your Spirit (Omnipresent), Psalm
139:7, Elihu responding to Job declares ‘Do you know the balancing of the
clouds, the wondrous works of him who is perfect in knowledge (Omniscient) Job
37:16 and Jeremiah says of God ‘that nothing is to hard for him,’ (Omnipotent)
Jeremiah 32:17.
The scripture is abundantly clear that God does not change. The concept
of a growing or evolving God who changes his eternal purposes is not to be
found in the scriptures. “For I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O
children of Jacob are not consumed,”[8]
says Yahweh. God’s immutability does not imply that God is static or sterile
but that He is the same yesterday, today and forever. God is unchanging in his
knowledge and plans, neither does he have mood swings, nor do his affections
and enthusiasm fade in intensity (James 1:170). The passages that indicates God
changeableness will be looked at in the next section arguing that these
passages are a case of anthropomorphisms.
Does God change his mind and purposes
Orthodox theology has traditionally maintained the doctrine of divine
immutability. By this it meant that although everything else in the
universe appears to undergo change. God
does not. He is the unchanging eternal one. Wayne Grudem defines God’s
immutability as the following: God is unchanging in his being, perfections,
purposes, and promises, yet God does act and feel emotions, and he acts and
feels differently in response to different situations.[9]
Not everyone agrees that God is unchangeable. The God of Open view theology is
a changing God. God changes his mind and learns from our actions and reacts
based upon those actions.
Both classical theism (orthodox theology) and Open view theology support
their views from the bible. I will now discuss whether it can be argued whether
God changes from the bible by presenting the two verses that open theist love
to champion as evidence of God’s changeableness.[10]
By God’s changeableness classical theist or orthodox theology will agree that
from a human perspective, God sometimes appear to change his plans, or his
actions based on what people do but this is not so from God’s view point. While
open view theology will argue the opposite that from God’s view point God
actually changes because he repents and changes his mind therefore God’s plan
can be thwarted.
Exodus 32:14 says “And the LORD relented from
the disaster that he had spoken of bringing on his people.” John Sanders, an advocate of Open Theism, says this
concerning Exodus 32:14:
Apparently,
Moses has a relationship with God such that God values what Moses
desires. If Moses interprets God’s intentions in an unfavorable way and
God values his relationship with Moses, then God must either persuade Moses or
concede his request. It is unlikely that Moses presents God with new
information. The real basis for the change in God’s decision comes from a
forceful presentation by one who is in a special relationship with God.
With Moses’ prayer, the decision-making situation is now altered for God.
Being in relationship with Moses, God is willing to allow him to influence the
path he will take. God permits human input into the divine future.
One of the most remarkable features in the Old Testament is that people can
argue with God and win.[11]
Sanders main argument is
that God can be persuaded to change his mind therefore God can change his purposes
and plans and even relenting from purposes he had previously set to take place.
Orthodox theologians respond to this suggested changeableness of God by
appealing to a hermeneutical principle of anthropomorphism. John Calvin, a
beloved theologian of the reformed tradition saw this as a case of
anthropomorphism commenting on Genesis 6:6 which is another verse that open
theist love to champion for God‘s changeableness, “And the LORD was sorry that he had made man
on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart”. John Calvin writes:
The repentance which is here
ascribed to God does not properly belong to him, but has reference to our
understanding of him. For since we cannot comprehend him as he is, it is
necessary that, for our sake, he should, in a certain sense, transform himself. That
repentance cannot take place in God, easily appears from this single
consideration, that nothing happens which is by him unexpected or
unforeseen. The same reasoning, and remark, applies to what follows, that
God was affected with grief. Certainly God is not sorrowful or sad; but
remains forever like himself in his celestial and happy repose: yet, because it
could not otherwise be known how great is God’s hatred and detestation of sin,
therefore the Spirit accommodates himself to our capacity.[12]
More text can be brought
forward to support the hermeneutical principle of anthropomorphism for the
biblical texts which seems to suggest that God changes his minds and purposes.
For example Paul writes of God’s purposes before the creation of the world to save
a people in 2 Timothy 1:9 “who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not
because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us
in Christ Jesus before the ages began”. And 1 Peter 1:20 declares that Jesus
Christ “was made manifest in the last time for your sakes”. God had a plan and
a purpose to save a people before the creation of the world and this plan and
purposes was unchangeable as God his unchangeable, timely manifesting his
purposes and plans in the last time for our sakes.
Conclusion
Scripture is abundantly clear that God cannot change, his nature and
being is essentially the for all eternity. Although there is change in
relationship for example his hatred towards sin nevertheless his being is the
same as well as His purposes and plans. The passages in scripture which seems
to indicate a changing God are cases of anthropomorphisms. As God himself
declares “For I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob are
not consumed.”[13]
[1] Romans 1:19
[2] Acts 17:23
[3] The Nature of God (2000) Andrew S. Kulikovsky
[4] Although Wayne Grudem and Pink uses
different titles to describe the different attributes nevertheless they agree
in the details.
[5] Ibid
[6] Psalm 90:2
[7] The Nature of God (2000) Andrew S.
Kulikovsky
[8] MalachI 3:6
[9] Bible Doctrine (1999) Wayne Grudem
[10] The two passages are Genesis 6.6 and
Exodus 32:14. Genesis 6.6 will be touched upon through John Calvin’s
interpretation of the text.
[11] The God who risks: A theology of
providence (1998). John Sanders
[12] Genesis, Calvin’s commentaries, vol
1, 248-249. John Calvin
[13] MalachI 3:6
The main problem with the anthropomorphism argument is that they go against the natural reading of the text and that often the explanations given seem contrived. (Now sometimes one has to but one has to have a very strong reason for doing so).
ReplyDeleteOne should always ask - 'Anthropomorphism's of what?' What else is trying to be communicated when it says that God regretted making man? Why not just say God was upset? (though one wonders about how upset He could be as it was entirely predictable to Him as He knew about it (or even caused it - According to some brands of Calvinism).
I feel Calvinists are locked into viewing scripture according to their world view. And it stems primarily from three things.
1/ seeing time as a 'thing'. You can't go out and buy a bucket of time. It is merely a description of the succession of events - this happened, then that happened etc etc. Now if God didn't create it because it wasn't a thing. Then He isn't outside it. Then His acts and consciousness as in the flow of history also.
2/ Having the view that the future is a totally fixed, specific, buttoned down thing. But if the future in fixed terms isn't real because it hasn't happened yet. Then God can't know it in specific terms because it isn't real in any sense. It is yet to be formed. God can't know the logically impossible. God can't know the colour of my daugheters hair. (Why? - because I don't have a daughter). Similarly God can't know the future in fixed terms. Why? Because the future hasn't happened yet and is open to the agents of free choice.
3/ The immutability discussion which you have had above. There is nothing in the Bible to indicate that God's experience isn't changing. In fact the wealth of versus emphasise the opposite.
Now what's interesting is this. No where in any of the ancient creeds does it make an issue over God's knowledge of the future. Hence, this isn't a critical subject when it comes to someone's Christian identity. I do agree it has implications for how that faith is lived out on a daily basis. So you may disagree with my above comments. But does is it critical to one's salvation? I think not.