AMRA-BEQ35
AMRA-BEQ35
BEQ35: To my question, “Is God able to change such that He can have true relationship,” Sam answered “yes” but added “depending upon what one means by the word change,” and then you withheld from the readers whatever you mean by change! Please clarify.
AMRA-BEQ35 - Ask Mr. Religion Responds:
I have described my position on the immutability (changeableness) of God in my opening post, AMRA-BEQ1, pointing out the many misunderstandings of unsettled theism about God’s immutable nature. In that post I clearly demonstrated that God is not the Unmoved Mover that the unsettled theist’s like to claim of those that disagree with unsettled theism’s humanistic doctrines. The position I advocated is worth repeating:
God is always the same in His eternal being. In other words, God never differs from Himself. God’s nature and character are constant, as are His purposes. God will always act the same way towards moral evil and moral good. God will always will and act faithfully.
Unsettled theists frequently like to use historical arguments in attempts to undermine classical theism, arguing that classical theism depends upon Greek philosophical traditions that have somehow undermined what only the unsettled theist thinks about the idea of God they have crafted.
Unsettled theist Pinnock states that Augustine allowed neo-platonic ideas to influence his interpretation that put God in “a kind of box” (see Pinnock’s Most Moved Mover). Boyd writes that classical theism became misguided “under the influence of Hellenic philosophy” (see Boyd’s The God of the Possible). Finally, Sanders writes that “Greek thought” and “neo-Platonic metaphysics” were a significant influence on the classical doctrine of God (see Sanders’ The Openness of God). Sanders even lumps Luther and Calvin into the camp of neo-Platonic influence that continues to “dominate conservative theology”. Thus, with a few swipes at the Greeks and the reformers (sans any serious supporting scholarship), the doctrines of God’s immutability, impassibility, and timelessness are declared paganism by the unsettled theist trinity of Pinnock, Boyd, and Sanders. Unfortunately, most other unsettled theists outside of any serious theological forum making these same claims have not spent any significant time studying theological history or philosophy. Instead they merely parrot what they have seen elsewhere (in the texts of Pinnock, Boyd, and Sanders) as if saying something more shrilly and loudly will make it so.
But, what of these claims, irrespective of the learnedness of those making them? Let’s examine the issue more closely.
No one will dispute that the early Church theologians read the Greek philosopher’s and even used Greek terms to communicate biblical truths efficiently to their generation. What is significantly overlooked by unsettled theists is that these early church theologians transformed the meanings and contents of the terms they used so as to be faithful to the truths of Scripture. We’ll examine more about this below, but for those seeking to truly learn about the doctrines of God and Greek thought, see John Piper’s Beyond the Bounds, Gerald Bray’s The Personal God, and Millard Erickson’s God the Father Almighty: A Contemporary Exploration of the Divine Attributes. Moreover, rabbinic authorities confirm that the attributes of God in Judaism have been developed from the bible and not Greek thought. See D.G. Montefiore’s A Rabbinic Anthology.
Orthodox Christian doctrine history also denies the notion of unsettled theists that classical theism is a pagan mixture. Even Boyd writes that the history of orthodox Christian doctrine has always been on the side of classical theism, concluding “I must concede that the unsettled view has been relatively rare in church history” (see The God of the Possible, pg. 115). Such a perspective is in keeping with the Church fathers, Luther, Calvin, Melancthon, the Puritans, as well as Spurgeon, Edwards, and Hodge, all of whom confirmed the classical doctrine as God’s deposited truth. One wonders that if unsettled theism were true, two thousand years of church history would be uprooted.
As noted, some unsettled theists will trot out their barbs about Augustine’s or Aquinas’ influence by the Greeks in the development of theology. That is about the extent of what they can say, since very few have studied these theologians or Greek philosophers carefully and formally. There is no disputing that Augustine owed much to Platonic thinking. In fact, it was his studies of Plato and Plotinus that led Augustine to his conversion to Christianity. The more Augustine read these thinkers the more Augustine realized that the whole of Greek thought had to be recast within the light of the Scriptures.
Likewise, Aquinas spent much of his free time in 1268 and the next five years writing commentaries about Aristotle. These were not the task of a Dominican theologian, which he was at the time (<st1><st1:city w:st="on">Paris</st1:city></st1>), and they were not written to twist the texts of Aristotle into a Christian purpose. It was afterwards, when Aquinas had more fully developed understandings of the Greeks, that he began composing his “errors of Aristotle”. Few persons who have not formally studied Aquinas realize that in all his thinking, Aquinas held to the intellectual policy that a genuine conflict between what the human mind can know and the truths of the Christian faith can never arise. There are many seeming conflicts, as Aquinas’ “errors of Aristotle” plainly showed, and they require much philosophical discussion to discuss them effectively.
The unsettled theist’s charges against classical theism are not new. In fact they are a repetition of liberal theology. Unsettled theists are copying the liberal theologians of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. These claims originated in nineteenth century <st1><st1:country-region w:st="on">Germany</st1:country-region></st1>, and were connected to Ferdinand Christian Baur (1869) and August Neander (1850). It was picked up later by Albrecht Ritschl (1889). The exposition of these claims that resurrected them all over again came from Alfred (Adolph) von Harnack (1930) published as “What is Christianity?” Walter Bauer (1960) further developed Harnack’s thesis.
Upon closer examination, unsettled theism’s foundations are based upon three philosophical presuppositions: love, relationship, and freedom. Sanders writes, that “Philosophical theology can lend clarity to concepts about the divine nature of providence that can be useful to biblical scholars” (See Sanders’ The God Who Risks). Yet the degree of authority Sanders gives to philosophical theology is incompatible with the historic understanding of general revelation. Yes, we must approach God according to His self-revelation in the scriptures, since the scriptures provide the only revelation of salvation. And general revelation plays an important role in mankind’s understanding of God. However, the scriptures are clear in that man’s knowledge of himself and the rest of creation, apart from God’s self-revelation in the scriptures, is not to be trusted. This is the proper role and scope of general revelation. Contrast this to Sanders’ assertion that there is a need to use philosophy in formulations of theology, stating that classical theism must be reevaluated in light of a “more relational metaphysic” (See Sanders’ The Openness of God). Despite the claims of unsettled theists that classical theism was influenced by philosophy, they do not renounce the use of philosophy. Instead they import a different, humanist philosophy into theological and biblical interpretation to understand anthropomorphisms in a personal, relational way, seeking to avoid the impersonal God of Greek thought. In other words, the unsettled theist overlays a philosophical grid over scripture, through which interpretations of scripture are sieved.
So, if these arguments by unsettled theists are not new, then what are they really about? I will let Pinnock (I could cite others, so skip the whole “we don’t support Pinnock’s views’ retort) describe the motivation by unsettled theists to claim ancient thoughts have polluted classical theism:
“Modern culture can actually assist us in this task because the contemporary horizon is more congenial to dynamic thinking about God than is the Greek portrait. Today it is easier to invite people to find fulfillment in a dynamic, personal God than it would be to ask them to find it in a deity who is immutable and self-enclosed. Modern thinking has more room for a God who is personal (even tripersonal) than it does for a God as absolute substance. We ought to be grateful for those features of modern culture, which make it easier to recover the biblical witness.” (The Openness of God, pg. 107)
“We are making peace with the culture of modernity.” (ibid., emphasis mine)
Well, here we have the real motivation of unsettled theism: mixing a theological system with contemporary culture which appeals to our modern world. After all, ours is a world nowadays that needs a feel-good God in its culture of selfishness, extravagance, and self-absorption. Philosophical humanism, liberalism, and modernism packaged up in the guise of new revelation.
Also, in AMRA-BEQ7 I noted the logical conclusion of the unsettled theist’s changeable God, in that this God is not the God of Abraham, for He has long since changed from accretion of knowledge based upon the actions of the unsettled theist’s liberty of indifference.
In AMRA-BEQ9 I made it clear that there is nothing in the understanding of the orthodox position on immutability that needs to be changed.
In AMRA-BEQ17, I argued that the underlying premise for unsettled theism’s position on immutability, that is, the need for a “true” relationship with God and His creatures is humanism, making God in the image of man. I also argued that God is not immobile and enters into personal, loving, relationships with His creatures, and cares for their happiness. Moreover, God enters into many relations with His creatures and lives their lives with them. Indeed, change occurs all around God, the relations of His creatures change to Him, but, fortunately, there is no change in God’s Being, attributes, purpose, motives, or His promises.
In AMRQ-BEQ21, I argued that all that was, is, and will be has been so decreed by God such that His eternal plan for realization of His glory will be realized. The future is known explicitly to God and is fixed by Him.
In AMRA-BEQ34 I affirm my agreement with Wayne Grudem in his description of the impassibility of God. But what Grudem fails to describe more fully is that God is not one whose emotions are out of control. He is reasoned and purposed. For example, His hate burns always perfectly hot against sin as does His Love for the righteous.
We must not confuse the want inherent in "passion" with feelings. Passion implies desire for what one does not have. God does not want. However, to say that God is impassable in the sense that he has no passions or cravings for fulfillment is not to say that he has no feelings. God feels anger at sin and rejoices in righteousness. But God’s feelings are unchanging. He always, unchangingly, feels the same sense of anger at sin. He never ceases to rejoice in goodness and lightness. Thus, God has no changing passions, but he does have unchanging feelings.
Carefully consider what you and other unsettled theists are saying: Your God can be wounded; God is regularly frustrated when His creatures thwart His plans; God is bitterly disappointed when His will is checked—as it regularly is by the so-called liberty of indifference of His creatures. The God of the unsettled theist is in the hands of angry sinners since only their kind of God is capable of love, tenderness, or affections. Unsettled theists will claim that the classical theist's God is detached, apathetic, and has no sensitivity.
We all like to think of God in our own human terms, despite the admonishments of Psalms 50:21; Isaiah 55:8-9; Ephesians 3:19; and Romans 11:33. God's love does not wax and wane. Human love and divine love are clearly spelled out in 1 Corinthians 13, both having many of the same characteristics. Yet there is not a single verse in the scriptures describing the characteristic of love has anything at all to do with passion. Real love is not at all like the emotion we refer to when we mention “love”. Thus, the Scriptures, not our human experiences, must guide our understandings of the affections of God. And anyone who devotes time biblically studying God’s affections, whether unsettled or classical theist will find that God’s Word places the divine affections on a level infinitely higher than our passions. While we learn much from anthropomorphisms, God’s affections, for the most part remain impenetrable. (For more discussion of God’s love see AMRA-BEQ6.)
For example, what are we to make of an impassible God who we find dealing with the Israelites in Sinai:
Exodus 32:9 And the LORD said to Moses, "I have seen this people, and behold, it is a stiff-necked people.
Exodus 32:10 Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them, in order that I may make a great nation of you."
Exodus 32:11 But Moses implored the LORD his God and said, "O LORD, why does your wrath burn hot against your people, whom you have brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand?
Two observations can be made from these passages. First, we don’t imagine that God is subject to temper tantrums. We know that God’s wrath against sin is something more than just a mood swing and we do not interpret this passage with simple literalness. Why? We learn from James 1:17 that God is not subject to variableness. God could not be literally wavering or regretting (1 Samuel 15:29) about His covenant (Deuteronomy 4:31). And Moses’ pleas would not have literally changed the mind of God (see Numbers 23:19). Thus a strictly literal interpretation of the anthropomorphisms in the passages above is impossible without distorting the character or the trustworthiness of God.
Secondly, we observe God’s righteous anger in the passage above. Anyone, especially unsettled theists, claiming that the God of classical theism is detached, apathetic, or insensitive must recognize the fallacy of their claims. We begin to make sense of impassibility by realizing the impossibility of comprehending God’s mind.
We can also examine the anthropomorphisms for real meanings. Yes, they are metaphors, but they mean something and also do not mean something. They mean that God is reassuring us that He is not indifferent or uninvolved with His creation. They do not mean that God is subject to passions, mood swings, etc.
That God does not change His mind in no way implies that God is devoid of thought. That God is not subject to passions in no way implies that God is devoid of feelings. What these do mean is that God’s mind and feelings are not like our thoughts and passions. God’s affections are never involuntary, irrational, or out of control.
J. I. Packer writes on impassibility:
“This means, not that God is impassive and unfeeling (a frequent misunderstanding), but that no created beings can inflict pain, suffering and distress on him at their own will. In so far as God enters into suffering and grief (which Scripture's many anthropopathisms, plus the fact of the cross, show that he does), it is by his own deliberate decision; he is never his creatures' hapless victim. The Christian mainstream has construed impassibility as meaning not that God is a stranger to joy and delight, but rather that his joy is permanent, clouded by no involuntary pain.” (<st1:city w:st="on"><st1>Ferguson</st1></st1:city> and Wright, New Dictionary of Theology)
Also,
“[Impassibility is] not impassivity, unconcern, and impersonal detachment in face of the creation; not insensitivity and indifference to the distresses of a fallen world; not inability or unwillingness to empathize with human pain and grief; but simply that God's experiences do not come upon him as ours come upon us, for his are foreknown, willed and chosen by himself, and are not involuntary surprises forced on him from outside, apart from his own decision, in the way that ours regularly are.” (See Peter T. O'Brien and David G. Peterson, God Who Is Rich in Mercy)