Immutable = Amoral

[Clete]

(See revised version of this post in post #3)

What is morality, (or ethics)?

A code of values to guide one's choices and actions, the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life.

To speak meaningfully of “value", one must first understand what a value is. A value is not merely something admired or preferred; it is something one acts to gain or to keep. It is pursued because it matters, because its presence is better than its absence, and its loss would be costly. If nothing can be gained, and nothing can be lost, then nothing is truly at stake, and if nothing is at stake, then nothing is of value.

We know this instinctively. Courage is only meaningful where danger exists. Faithfulness only matters where betrayal is possible. Love is not a risk-free endeavor; it is the willful investment of oneself in another, with the hope of gain and the possibility of loss.

This is why the immutable God of Calvin and Augustine cannot be the source of morality. A God who cannot change, cannot suffer, cannot be affected in any way, is a God who cannot have any values. He cannot be pleased or grieved, helped or harmed, served or thwarted. He cannot gain or lose anything and so cannot seek to gain or to keep anything and thus He cannot value anything. A being who cannot value anything cannot be righteous because righteousness requires a standard that defines something as better than its opposite, and, by extension, a being who cannot be touched by others cannot love anyone, cannot treasure any relationship because they are all indifferent to its being. The doctrine of divine impassibility admits this openly: God does not rejoice, does not sorrow, does not respond. What remains is not the God of Scripture, but a metaphysical abstraction; immutable, impassible, impenetrable and unaffected. An immutable God, then, is an amoral God.

The alternative is not to reduce God to human volatility; it is to believe what Scripture actually reveals: that God created us in His image and that He, therefore, values us. He desires relationship with us and when that relationship was broken, He did not declare it of no consequence as if it didn't matter to Him, but rather He entered into history to restore it. In the divine economy, value demands a price, and God did not assign some arbitrary worth to His creation but demonstrated its value by paying for it with His own life.

The cross is not a put-on for effect; it is the cost of divine relationship. God did not feign loss; He entered into it. He did not pretend death; He suffered it. Jesus bore the weight of sin, endured real separation from the Father, and truly and willingly died in order to purchase our salvation. This was not theatrical, it was personal, it was just, and it was the fullest revelation of a God who pays the full price for what He values.

 

[Lon]

I'm trying to follow, would: "God meets our need, thus cannot be immutable"? be the summation of this argument?

 

[Clete]

Posting the OP was premature. It was incomplete. Here is a revised version that more completely makes the argument...

What is morality?

Morality is a code of values to guide one’s choices and actions, the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life.

To speak meaningfully of “value,” one must first understand what a value is. A value is not simply something admired or preferred; it is something one acts to gain or to keep. It is pursued because it matters, because its presence is better than its absence, and its loss carries real cost. If nothing can be gained, and nothing can be lost, then nothing is truly at stake, and if nothing is at stake, then nothing is of value.

We know this instinctively. Courage is only meaningful where danger exists. Faithfulness only matters where betrayal is possible. Love is not a risk-free sentiment, it is the deliberate investment of oneself in another, with the hope of emotional and relational gain as well as the possibility of loss.

Once the concept of value is established, the next question is, which values are truly worth pursuing? Not all desires are good, nor is every goal worth the cost of gaining it. A standard is required by which to judge whether a value is worth the cost required to obtain or retain it. This is the birth of morality. Morality is not merely the possession of values, but the evaluation of them. It is the rational discipline of determining what is good, what is evil, and what is worth the cost. Life is the fundamental value our nature is set to pursue. The good is that which supports, sustains, and fulfills life; the evil is that which destroys it or threatens it. To act in a way that preserves, enhances, or redeems life is to do good, and choosing that which leads to destruction is evil.

This is why the immutable God of Calvin and Augustine cannot be the source of morality. A God who cannot change, cannot suffer, and cannot be affected in any way, is a God who cannot possess any values. He cannot be pleased or grieved, helped or harmed, served or resisted. He cannot gain anything or lose anything and therefore cannot seek to gain or to keep anything. A being who cannot value anything cannot be righteous, because righteousness requires a real standard that regards one thing as better than its opposite. Nor can such a being love anyone or value any relationship, for all things are equally irrelevant to its existence. The doctrine of divine impassibility does not merely suggest this; it insists upon it. God, according to that view, does not rejoice, does not sorrow, and does not respond. What remains is not the God of Scripture, but a cold abstraction. Immutable. Impassible. Untouched. Unmoved. An immutable God, then, is an amoral God.

The alternative is not to reduce God to human frailty, but to take Scripture seriously when it calls Him the living God. The God who made us in His image is a God who values. He desires relationship with His creation, and when that relationship was broken, He did not respond with indifference. He entered into history to restore it. In the moral economy, value demands a price. And the value of man was not affirmed by divine decree but by divine action. God did not assign some imaginary worth to humanity. He revealed its worth by paying the highest possible price.

God’s existence was never at risk, but His life was given. The value He sought was not comfort, but restored relationship. When that relationship was lost, He did not dismiss the loss as meaningless, He desired to reclaim it. He did so not by appeasement or ritual, but by trade. He exchanged His life for the lives of those He loved. The cost was His own suffering and death; a price He deemed worth paying. Though the death of Christ was temporary, it was not symbolic. It was real. It was the death of the incarnate Son of God, and its value is infinite. When measured against the souls of men, it is infinitely more than sufficient. It is unending. Every man, woman, and child could be saved by it, if only they would believe.

The cross was not a gesture. It was not a performance. It was the true cost of the divine-human relationship. God did not feign loss; He fully entered into it. He did not pretend to die; He actually died. He bore the weight of sin, paid its full wages and endured real separation from the Father. He willingly gave His life to redeem what He valued. That act was not symbolic, it was just, and it was the clearest revelation of a God who pays the full price for what He desires to gain or to keep.