Classic Theology vs. The Contemporary - Case Study Example

? ic theology vs. the contemporary: Discuss the significance of this issue for ic theology vs. the contemporary discussion regarding the immutability of God. The doctrine of the Immutability of God is grounded firmly within the scriptural contexts from both the Old and New Testaments. In the classic Theistic or the Thomist framework, God is defined as having the attribute of being “unchanging in nature, desire, and purpose. 1 The acts of God within the sphere of his creation are not seen as arbitrary and his response to people is within the context of his “desires and purposes of holy love. 2 His judgment of people is conditioned on his “changeless purpose concerning sin and conversion. 3 The scriptural embodiment of the doctrine of immutability is probably captured best in 1 Samuel 15:29 (RSV) where it is written, “And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or repent; for he is not a man, that he should repent.” The scriptural basis of the doctrine of Immutability is fully developed with numerous citations and succinct specificity to unchangeableness that enlightens the doctrine. Scriptures offer confirmation that God is not mortal with the qualities of lying or a changeableness of mind (Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29). There is a timelessness, unchanging quality to God in a time-dependent, changing world (Psalm 102:26). The promises of God are of an eternal nature not capriciously offered to people (Psalm 110:4; Isaiah 31:2). His steadfastness is apparent in his constancy of presence and love (Isaiah 40:28). The final book of the English Old Testament rings with the words of Malachi in Chapter 3, verse 6 (RSV), “For I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.” The New Testament has few direct citations regarding changeableness. God’s unchangeable nature is restated for these readers in a new context (Hebrews 1:11; 7:21). . While scripture offers examples that can be interpreted to show a disparity in whether God has a changeable nature, the major points of consideration would be that the New Testament offers no distinct contradiction to the attribute of God’s unchangeableness. A modern reformulation of the classic doctrine of immutability has been penned by James Packer. God is simple (that is, totally integrated), perfect and immutable. These words affirm that he is wholly and entirely involved in everything that he is and does, and that his nature, goals, and ways of acting do not change, either for the better (being perfect, he cannot become better) or for the worse. His immutability is not the changelessness of an eternally frozen pose, but the moral consistency that holds him to his own principles of action and leads him to deal differently with those who change their own behavior towards him. • Would you agree more with Vanhoozer or Nygren on this issue? Why? No, They state, “…from Plato, Aristotle and the subsequent Hellenistic tradition, the church arrived at the notion that God was altogether unmoved, impassible, immutable, nontemporal and purely actual.” Open theists uniformly teach that the church fathers were so influenced by Greek philosophy when they formulated their theology, that the church’s historical and theological understanding of God reflects a more philosophical understanding than a biblical one. Carl Henry rightfully noted, “It is true that medieval theologians were aware of the teaching of certain Greek philosophers in discussing God’s immutability…. They noted Plato’s arguments that change in a supremely perfect being constitute corruption, deterioration and loss of perfection. Gregory Boyd says, “God can’t foreknow the good or bad decisions of the people He creates until He created these people and they, in turn create their decisions.”31 In what way(s) does Feinberg contribute to this discussion in response to “Openness” theism and in relation to the immutability of God? Explain the importance of this issue for the gospel and Christian ministry The God of Open View Theology is a changing God. He changes His mind and feels emotions. He is dynamic and personal, interacting with His creation on a moment-by-moment basis. He learns from our actions and reacts based upon those actions. He is like an "infinitely intelligent chess player" who anticipates the moves of His creation and responds accordingly. Open theists maintain that God does not know what a given human being will do until he acts. They refer to such human actions as possibilities. Because God remains unaware of human possibilities, the future remains “open” in His mind. This means that rather than God knowing all things, He is in the process of learning new things as they take place. John Feinberg addressed the question of whether God can change by suggesting that classical theology posits a “strong immutability”, meaning that He cannot ever change in any way or to any degree. It also suggests that since God is perfect, He must be without changing emotions, since His emotional state is perfect and anything else would be imperfect. He feels the same whether He sees human pain or pleasure. Open theists, rightly given the teachings of the Bible, object to this. Yet their version of an “incomplete” God who is neither all-powerful, nor all-knowing, nor eternal beyond time is unscriptural as well. Feinberg resolves this by suggesting that some things, like God’s moral character and His inherent attributes, cannot change, while some things, like His emotions and His relationship to people, can. Feinberg’s argument has some value in that it reconciles passages indicating the changing and unchanging aspects of God, but weakens when to do he tries to make God an inhabitant of time The issue of whether God can change or not is important to Christian theology. The God of the Classical Theists is too distant and uncaring to be Jehovah, the great I AM. However, the weak and confused god of the Open Theists is nowhere near the God of the Bible. Clearly, the best way to live is to believe the Bible. God is unchanging and changes in response to human activity. He is totally sovereign and yet man still has free will; we are responsible for what we do. In summary we know that God loves us in a way far beyond what we fully understand, limited as we are in using human love, always weak and fickle, to understand His love, infinite and unchanging. We know that His love will never fail; His compassion towards His people will never fade. How do we know this…because of Jesus. Reference Feinberg, John S., 2004. The Many Faces of Evil: Theological Systems and the Problems of Evil. Revised and expanded, Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2004 Read More