Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T09:14:54.350Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Doctrine of God’s Immutability: introducing the modern debate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2024

Santiago Sia
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The doctrine of God’s immutability has a basis in the Judaeo-Christian scriptures, it is generally accepted. But, as is usually the case with most descriptions of God found in these sources, the belief that God does not and cannot change is not developed in any great detail. Given the Semitic thought patterns and linguistic expressions, which are concrete, this is not surprising. Nevertheless, there are certain passages which seem to provide a foundation for regarding God as immutable. For instance, in Mai 3:6 Yahweh says, ‘Surely I the Lord do not change.’ In Ps 101:27 the Psalmist addresses Yahweh: ‘Thou art the same and thy years have no end.’ Moreover, Yahweh’s revelation of himself as other than the world and man (Hos 11:9), Lord of all creation (Is 6:5; Ps 97:5), the almighty (Ps 135) who resembles nothing in the created world (Ex 20:4, Dt 5:8) and other similar descriptions apparently support that belief since God is unlike his creatures, who are subject to change. On the other hand, the Israelites experienced Yahweh as a living God (Jdg 8:19; 1 Kgs 17:1) who is actively and personally present to his people. Yahweh was their Lord and Master. In fact, the Old Testament is a record of that personal involvement of God with his people. The Old Testament, therefore, believed in a God who was utterly other but who despite this status listened, talked, wept, walked, judged and loved.

With the birth of Christianity this dual conception of God gains more significance.

Type
Research Article
Information
New Blackfriars , Volume 68 , Issue 805 , May 1987 , pp. 220 - 232
Copyright
Copyright © 1987 Provincial Council of the English Province of the Order of Preachers

References

1 For a historical and systematic study of the doctrine of God's immutability within a theological and christological context, see Weinandy, Thomas G., Does God Change? The Word's Becoming in the Incarnation Vol. IV in Studies in Historical Theology (St. Bede's Publications, 1985)Google Scholar. Also, MOhlen, Heribert, Die Vertinderlichkeit Gottes als Horizont einer zukunftigen Christologie (Munster: Aschendorff, 1969)Google Scholar.

2 Works of Philo Judaeus, trans. Younge, CD. (George Bell & Sons, 1890)Google Scholar.

3 Ibid. IV, 458.

4 St. Augustine, Confessions, trans. Pusey, E.B. (E.P. Dutton & Co., 1907), p. 261Google Scholar. The idea that God is timeless was taken up and defended by other theists. Cf. Pike, Nelson, God and Timelessness (Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1970)Google Scholar. See also, Clarke, W. Norris, The Philosophical Approach to God: a Neo‐Thomistic Perspective (Wake Forrest Univ., 1979), pp. 93–96Google Scholar.

5 St. Augustine, De Civitate, XI, vi.

6 St. Augustine, De Trinitate, Bk. XV, ch. 5, sec. 7.

7 St. Anselm, Proslogium; Monologium; An Appendix in Behalf of the Fool by Gaunilo; Cur Dens Homo, trans. Deane, S.N. (Open Court Publ., 1945), p. 1Google Scholar.

8 Cf. Maimonides, The Guide of the Perplexed, trans. Friedländer, M. (Trübner & Co., 1985)Google Scholar.

9 St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, la, qq. 2—26. ET. T. Gilby gen ed., vols. 2—5 (Blackfriars, Eyre & Spottiswoode and McGraw‐Hill, 1964—6).

10 Cf. von Httgel, F., Essays and Addresses on the Philosophy of Religion. Second Series (E.P. Dutton & Co., 1926)Google Scholar.

11 Among those who have also dealt critically with God's immutability as traditionally formulated are: Karl Barth, Paul Tillich, W. Pannenberg, J. McQuarrie, Karl Rahner and Jean Galot. See also Kitamori, Kazoh, Theology of the Pain of God (John Knox Press, 1965)Google Scholar, Ward, Keith, The Concept of God (Fount Paperbacks, 1977)Google Scholar and Rational Theology and the Creativity of God ‐(Basil Blackwell, 1982)Google Scholar, and Swinburne, Richard, The Coherence of Theism (Clarendon Press, 1977)Google Scholar.

12 For a brief introduction to process theology, see Pailin, David, ‘Process Theology’ in A New Dictionary of Christian Theology edited by Richardson, Alan and Bowden, John (SCM, 1983)Google Scholar.

13 Charles Hartshorne is a prolific writer. Among his many writings which discuss his views on God's immutability see The Divine Relativity: a Social Conception of God (Yale Univ. Press, 1948)Google Scholar, Man's Vision of God and the Logic of Theism (Willett, Clark & Co., 1941)Google Scholar and one of his more recent works, Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes (SUNY, 1984)Google Scholar. In my God in Process Thought: a Study in Charles Hartshorne's Concept of God, Vol. 7) in Studies in Philosophy and Religion (Martinus Nijhoff, 1985) I present Hartshorne’ idea of God systematically and in detail. This book also contains a bibliography of Hartshorne's writings as well as of secondary sources. A sequel to this book, which will contain critical responses from various perspectives by theologians, philosophers and others is in preparation.

14 Hartshorne, , Creative Synthesis and Philosophic Method (SCM, 1970), p. 233Google Scholar.

15 There were, of course, much earlier exchanges. See, for instance, Wild, John, ‘A Review Article: Hartshorne's Divine Relativity’, Review of metaphysics, II, 4 (1948), pp. 65—77Google Scholar; Hartshorne, , ‘The Divine Relativity and Absoluteness: a Reply to John Wild’, Review of metaphysics, IV, 1 (1950), pp. 31–60 Google Scholar; Wild, ‘The Divine Existence: an Answer to Mr. Hartshorne’, Ibid., pp. 61—84.