Found here. Our comments in bold.
-----------------------
The word "immutability," like the doctrine, is unnecessarily arcane and pretentious. It simply means "unchanging."
We have found this pretentiousness too often in our studies of doctrine. Impassibility, soteriology, regeneration, aseity, decretive will, hypostatic union, immanence, middle knowledge... the list of obtuse theological terminology goes on and on to no one's profit.
If the reader thinks we are wrong about this, the existence of the article itself vindicates us. If conventional terminology were more typically used, this article would not need to exist. Thus the article, needed to explain the term, means the term requires explanation.
But strangely, this is a short and unsatisfying article. The author has the opportunity to explain and document and explore the idea that God does not change, but punts with less than 500 words expended.
Lastly, we note the author cowardly hides behind the nameless "Publisher" moniker.
--------------
The immutability of God, also known as the doctrine of divine immutability, is an incommunicable attribute of God (The doctrine is "incommunicable?" Then what is the purpose of this article?)
In the New Testament, God is described as being the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13:8) (Let's quote the verse:
He. 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and for ever.
We immediately desired to consult Strong's to find out the Greek word meanings. We were a bit surprised at what we found.
"Same" is autos, which means self. We would use the term in words like "autobiography" [self-story], "autonomy" [self-governance], or "automatic" [self-operating].
Literally, Hebrews 13:8 is Jesus Christ, yesterday and today, is the self... Or, He is He. This is reminiscent of Jesus' jaw-dropping statement, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM." [John 8:58] So the writer of Hebrews was actually telling us that Jesus Christ is who he is. He is Jesus yesterday, He is Jesus today, and He is Jesus forever.
Therefore, autos does not really mean "same."
An alternative word that the writer of Hebrews could have used at this point is ametathetos, a word he actually used in Hebrews 6:17 and 18:
17 Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear... 18 God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie...
Ametathetos means immutable, unchangeable, which conveys the concept being described by "Publisher."
But the author of Hebrews didn't use this word in 13:8.
We would conclude that Hebrews 13:8 does not have to do with Jesus being the same, or immutable, but rather that Jesus is who He is. )
which is one of the foundational passages used to support the doctrine of the immutability of God. Additionally, in Malachi 3:6, God unequivocally says that he does not change. (Hmm. The verse is,
Mal. 3:6 “I the LORD do not change. So you, O descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed.
The two statements in this verse do not seem to connect to each other. How are they related to each other? And how are they related to the narrative of the previous verses, where God was speaking to Israel about His intent to judge their sins?
The Hebrew word for "change" is shanah, which means to repeat, to do again, to say again. Here shanah is coupled with the word lō, which means "not." God is not going to repeat/not do again/not say again.
We like the last one, which would read
Mal. 3:6 I the LORD will not speak again. So you, O descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed.
Wow. This makes the two phrases of the verse understandable. God was previously speaking judgment against Israel, but decided not to continue speaking, and because He did not speak again, Israel was not destroyed.
So in actual fact, this verse is not about God not changing. That cleared things up, didn't it?
Up to this point, all this means "Publisher" has simply chosen poorly-translated verses.)
These passages, along with others, demonstrate that God is unchanging and unchangeable. (These other passages are worthy of mention. From the NT:
Ja. 1:17 Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.
"Change" is fickleness or variableness. This is a concept related to unchangingness, but is more specifically a statement of trustworthiness.
From the OT, there are five primary verses, all of which use the same word for "change," nacham, which means to be sorry, to console:
Nu. 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind.
1Sa. 15:29 He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a man, that he should change his mind.”
There's a doctrinal controversy of sorts at this point, since the same Hebrew word is used here:
Ex. 32:14 Then the LORD relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.
And also:
Ge. 6:6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.So the Lord is not a man who would change His mind. But He did relent from bringing disaster, and He was sorry, or needed to be consoled, for making man. We are not going to undertake to solve the seeming conflict today, however. We are simply providing food for thought.)
One of the reasons why the immutability of God is so important—besides the fact that it is how God has revealed Himself and that we are obligated to believe what He says—is that it assures believers that he is stable and provides us with a sense of security in His promises. In a world that is constantly changing and uncertain, the fact that God remains the same is a source of comfort and assurance. This doctrine also helps to safeguard the character of God, ensuring that he is always good, loving, and just. (These are not biblical reasons. Yeah, it's nice that our sense of security is enhanced, but that is not a biblical statement. The author could have quoted many verses about assurance, but did not.)
Another reason why the immutability of God is so important is that it is closely tied to the concept of divine sovereignty. If God were to change, it would imply that he is not in control of all things and that his power and authority are limited. However, the doctrine of divine immutability affirms that God is sovereign over all things and that nothing can happen without His knowledge or decree. (Apparently "Publisher" has ran out of biblical reasons and has to bolster his doctrine with other doctrines, in this case sovereignty. We discuss sovereignty here.)
Some critics of this doctrine argue that it is incompatible with the idea of God being loving and compassionate. They claim that a God who never changes cannot truly be loving because love requires the ability to change and adapt in response to the needs of others. (This is the best critical perspective the author can find? No mention of Open Theism. Or the Arminian approach. Or the Eastern Orthodox version.
This article could have been so much more.)
However, this argument fails to take into account the fact that God’s love is not contingent upon his ability to change. In fact, God’s love is constant and unchanging, just like God himself. This means that God’s love is always present, no matter what circumstances we find ourselves in.
In conclusion, (Wow, he's done.)
the doctrine of the immutability of God is a fundamental tenet of the Christian faith. It affirms that God is unchanging and unchangeable, providing believers with a sense of security and stability. Additionally, this doctrine is closely tied to the concept of divine sovereignty and helps to safeguard the character of God. (We're pretty sure God does not need your help, sir.)
Despite criticisms from aberrant sects of Christendom, (Hmmm. "Aberrant" is deviating from what is considered proper or normal. Pretty strong words applied to those who happen to have another perspective.)
the immutability of God is an important doctrine that is supported by the Bible.
No comments:
Post a Comment