Can God Change

[disciple Clint]

Can God Change

I have another one of those theological dilemmas for which I cannot seem to find a solution within my mental faculties to discern in a way that I find acceptable.

The Word is God and became 100% man while remaining 100% God in His incarnation. He will remain fully God and full man for eternity. He did not simply take on a human body, He became human in all respects.

This is very important because it was absolutely necessary for Jesus to be both man and God in order to achieve the reconciliation and redemption of mankind.

One of the cardinal attributes of God is that He is perfect and therefore He does not change in any way, He is immutable.

Now here is my dilemma. God cannot change, however God became forever incarnate, that is a substantial change, how do I wrap my mind around this let alone explain it to someone?

 

[friend of]

I just believe that Jesus was always human, as the begotten of God.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Yes - I dont think God saw the mess and decided to send Jesus.

God's perfect plan included the humanness of Jesus from eternity past.

 

[ewq1938]

Now here is my dilemma. God cannot change, however God became forever incarnate

Yes and no. "God" did not incarnate. "God the Son" did incarnate meaning God the Father and God the Holy Spirit did not incarnate. We have to use exact language when speaking of "God".

Mal_3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

The Lord here is God but is it the full Trinity or one of them speaking?

I think it's God the Father saying he changes not. As you said, God the Son did change because of the incarnation.

God the Father changes not.
God the Son changed via incarnation.
God the Holy Spirit changes not.

Dilemma solved.

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

God cannot change, however God became forever incarnate, that is a substantial change, how do I wrap my mind around this let alone explain it to someone?

When the Bible says of God that he cannot change it is speaking about his personality, his character. Our character changes throughout our live, but God is always the same. Jesus' personality is identical to God's personality, there was no change in this sense.

 

[disciple Clint]

I just believe that Jesus was always human, as the begotten of God.

That is interesting but that is not what the bible has to say.

 

[disciple Clint]

Yes and no. "God" did not incarnate. "God the Son" did incarnate meaning God the Father and God the Holy Spirit did not incarnate. We have to use exact language when speaking of "God".

Mal_3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

The Lord here is God but is it the full Trinity or one of them speaking?

I think it's God the Father saying he changes not. As you said, God the Son did change because of the incarnation.

God the Father changes not.
God the Son changed via incarnation.
God the Holy Spirit changes not.

Dilemma solved.

Well not exactly solved because Jesus is still 100% God and God does not change.

 

[hedrick]

You can push changelessness too far. Can God not take actions because that's a change?

The Trinity says that God was always "incarnatable," that Jesus shows us what God always was. But becoming incarnate is in some sense a change. I'd argue that this means the extreme interpretations of changelessness aren't true.

 

[ewq1938]

Well not exactly solved because Jesus is still 100% God and God does not change.

It all depends which of the Trinity said they change not. It had to be God the Father who didn't change. Jesus didn't say that.

 

[disciple Clint]

When the Bible says of God that he cannot change it is speaking about his personality, his character. Our character changes throughout our live, but God is always the same. Jesus' personality is identical to God's personality, there was no change in this sense.

Maybe but I think it is talking about the fact that God is perfect in all respects and therefore no change is need or desirable.

 

[disciple Clint]

You can push changelessness too far. Can God not take actions because that's a change?

The Trinity says that God was always "incarnatable," that Jesus shows us what God always was. But becoming incarnate is in some sense a change. I'd argue that this means the extreme interpretations of changelessness aren't true.

interesting argument, I need to think about that in some depth.

 

[disciple Clint]

It all depends which of the Trinity said they change not. It had to be God the Father who didn't change. Jesus didn't say that.

since each person is God and of the same essence how is what you are proposing logical?

 

[The Liturgist]

Yes and no. "God" did not incarnate. "God the Son" did incarnate meaning God the Father and God the Holy Spirit did not incarnate. We have to use exact language when speaking of "God".

Mal_3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

The Lord here is God but is it the full Trinity or one of them speaking?

I think it's God the Father saying he changes not. As you said, God the Son did change because of the incarnation.

God the Father changes not.
God the Son changed via incarnation.
God the Holy Spirit changes not.

Dilemma solved.

Well, not quite, because the ancient faith of Ephesus and Chalcedon, contra Nestorius and Eutyches is that God the Son became fully God and fully man without change, confusion, separation or division. The incarnation therefore does not constitute a change in the divine essence.

However, the same Ephesian and Chalcedonian theology, as advanced by the non-Chalcedonian (but Ephesian) Oriental Orthodox bishop St. Severus of Antioch, and later heavily emphasized in Lutheranism, as @ViaCrucis and @MarkRohfrietsch might confirm, is the principle of communicatio idiomatum, where in a Christological context, we avoid assigning attributes or actions, that is to say, idioms, to either the human or divine nature, as the Nestorian hymnographer Mar Narsai once did in a poem that I personally find unedifying.

Of course, Nestorianism is a valid Nicene Christology, but the majority of churches, including the Assyrian Church of the East, which venerates Nestorius as a saint, do not use his Christology (most churches use Chalcedonian Christology, the Oriental Orthodox use the Cyrillian Miaphysite Christology associated with the earlier Council of Ephesus, and the Assyrians use a translation of it developed by Mar Babai, which really differs only in the retention of a few Nestorian-influenced hymns, a loathing for St. Cyril of Alexandria, and the use of the term Christotokos instead of Theotokos to refer to the Blessed Virgin Mary; all three affirm the union of the human and divine natures in the Incarnation without change, confusion, separation or division, and Miaphysite and Assyrian Christology were determined by Cardinal Ratzinger, before he became Pope Benedict XVI, and the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith over which he presided, to be compatible with Chalcedon Christology; some Eastern Orthodox churches and the Church of England had previously come to the same conclusions.

 

[ewq1938]

since each person is God and of the same essence how is what you are proposing logical?

God the Father can say something on his own and not be also said by the two other members of the Trinity. That is what I clearly was proposing.

 

[The Liturgist]

You can push changelessness too far. Can God not take actions because that's a change?

The Trinity says that God was always "incarnatable," that Jesus shows us what God always was. But becoming incarnate is in some sense a change. I'd argue that this means the extreme interpretations of changelessness aren't true.

Well, before we assume the incarnation is a change, let us not forget the eternity of God. God exists outside time; indeed He created time.

However, communicatio idiomatum suggests it might indeed be a change as @ewq1938 suggests, except paradoxically, it cannot be a change to either His humanity or His divinity according to Ephesian and Chalcedonian Christology.

 

[disciple Clint]

God the Father can say something on his own and not be also said by the two other members of the Trinity. That is what I clearly was proposing.

Yes He could say something but the will of the 3 is identical because they are of the same essence.

 

[ewq1938]

Well, before we assume the incarnation is a change, let us not forget the eternity of God. God exists outside time; indeed He created time.

However, communicatio idiomatum suggests it might indeed be a change as @ewq1938 suggests, except paradoxically, it cannot be a change to either His humanity or His divinity according to Ephesian and Chalcedonian Christology.

My position is that the person who said, "I change not" was God the Father not anyone else of the Trinity thus if God the Son did change in any sense it doesn't involve Mal 3:6.

 

[ewq1938]

Yes He could say something but the will of the 3 is identical because they are of the same essence.

Who sat on the Mt of Olives and spoke the Olivet Discourse? There's 4 choices:

1. God the Father
2. God the Son
3. God the Holy Spirit
4. All three of them

 

[Michael V. Pardo]

Can God Change

I have another one of those theological dilemmas for which I cannot seem to find a solution within my mental faculties to discern in a way that I find acceptable.

The Word is God and became 100% man while remaining 100% God in His incarnation. He will remain fully God and full man for eternity. He did not simply take on a human body, He became human in all respects.

This is very important because it was absolutely necessary for Jesus to be both man and God in order to achieve the reconciliation and redemption of mankind.

One of the cardinal attributes of God is that He is perfect and therefore He does not change in any way, He is immutable.

Now here is my dilemma. God cannot change, however God became forever incarnate, that is a substantial change, how do I wrap my mind around this let alone explain it to someone?

To put it simply, the Trinity. The Eternal Spirit Jesus calls His Father dwelt in Him, but didn't cease to exist as the same Father of all spirits nor did He abandon His omnipresence by dwelling fully in His Son. Eg. He wasn't encapsulated by the body of Jesus Christ. You can no more put God in a single body than in a box or a temple.
27 “But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain You. How much less this temple which I have built! 1 Kings 8:27

Sound doctrine tells us by the witness of His Spirit that Jesus is fully God, but scripture also tells us that he took the form of a servant and emptied Himself of His glory. The scripture also tells us that Jesus will fully yield up His authority to the Father at the final judgment in the established order recognized for 2000 years as the trinity, or triune godhead.
24 then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to our God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be abolished is death. 1 Corinthians 15:24-26

Paul described this apparent logical dilemma in terms of seeing Jesus as a man versus seeing Him as the creator, a matter of limited human perception.
16 Therefore from now on we recognize no one by the flesh; even though we have known Christ by the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer. 17 Therefore if anyone is in Christ, this person is a new creation; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. 2 Corinthians 5:16-17
I think this was why Paul used the term Christ Jesus as opposed to Jesus the Christ in reference to eternal truth.

It's relatively simple to relate to the person of Jesus as the "Son of Man" or descendent of Adam, but not so simple to relate to Him as the Son of God, the ancient of days, the eternal creator of the Universe.

I think that God chose to reveal Himself in three persons in order to accomplish His purposes in creation, but that doesn't make any of the three "less than God". Rather, it creates an order that finite beings can understand for an infinite God. We worship one God revealed in 3 persons, not 3 personalities revealed as one God.

There is no discontinuity in the godhead, the three are One God who has revealed Himself in Jesus Christ. That's difficult enough for the spiritual to "wrap their mind around", but the carnal minded just can't receive this. Scripture says that it's impossible for the carnal mind to receive the things of the Spirit so trying to explain it to the unregenerate is an exercise in futility.

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, and forever. Hebrews 13:8

 

[The Liturgist]

My position is that the person who said, "I change not" was God the Father not anyone else of the Trinity thus if God the Son did change in any sense it doesn't involve Mal 3:6.

This is an interesting post; I want to begin by noting that in addition to Malachi 3:6 , we also have Job 23:13, and in the New Testament, Hebrews 13:8 and James 1:17, all of which attest to the immutability of the Divine Nature. And there are other verses as well, but my head hurts too much to recall them.

Now, in the interesting case of Malachi, considering that the Holy Spirit spoke by the prophets, and Jesus Christ was the Word, I propose the only instances in all of scripture where we can say with absolute certainty that God the Father Himself spoke, as opposed to Jesus Christ speaking as the Word, or the Holy Spirit speaking through a prophet, are at the Baptism and Transfiguration of our Lord as recorded in the Gospels.