Certainly modern Christianity has helped perpetuate this myth. We act as though God created us out of some need or that he needs us to act on his behalf this side of eternity. We hear sermons about how God created us because he needed creatures to see his glory. Other sermons speak of how God needs us so he can carry out his will on earth.

The problem is that if God needs us, then that mean he was absent of something prior to creation. To be absent of something means that one has the capacity to add something. For instance, if I am missing a tooth, I have the capacity to gain a tooth. If I am missing an eye, I have the capacity to gain an eye. Were I to gain an eye then something about my being would change. Thus, if I have the capacity to gain something, I have the capacity to change (if A then B, if B, then C, therefore if A then C). If God had a need then he had the capacity to fulfill that need and therefore had the capacity to change.

Popular Christianity aside, the God of the Bible (who is the true Christian God) is in need of nothing. The idea that God created based upon some need misconstrues what Christianity actually teaches.

Both the Bible and early Christian writings are explicitly clear that God created for two reasons. First, he created for the glory of the Son. Everything that was created was to display the glory of God and in that display, the Son was to be glorified. This was not out of some need to be glorified or some need to add glory to God. God is infinite and his glory comes from him and is not external to his nature, therefore no one, including God, can add to or take away from his glory.

The second reason listed for God creating is his love. God did not do this because he needs creatures to love – love already existed within the Trinity – but simply because he wanted to love. In other words, creation was done simply because God wanted to create. This may unsettle people because the implication is that our entire existence rests upon God simply deciding that he wanted to create creatures that he could show love to.

But now that we are created, does this indicate that God needs us? The critic could say that while God did not initially need humanity, because of how he has designed his plan he does need us. This would indicate that while God was able to bring us about, he is not able to fulfill his plans without human involvement, again indicating that he is imperfect and subject to change.

While admittedly is seems that God needs us, we are simply looking at his purpose and plan from our perspective and not considering the greater perspective of Scripture. God calls upon us to do certain things and will sometimes refrain from intervening in human affairs when human action is absent. However, the mystical teaching of theosis answers why God does this. It is not that God needs us to accomplish his ends, but instead that he invites us to participate in accomplishing these ends so that we might become like him in all aspects except essence and being.

A good way to imagine the above is to think of a father working on a car. Imagine that the father is a mechanic who has an intimate understanding of the vehicle because he built the vehicle. Though he is perfectly capable of working on the car himself, he invites his son out to help him with the car. He has his son move hoses, put fluid in the car, and work on the vehicle, not because the father needs the son’s help, but because the father wishes to help the son grow in his knowledge of the vehicle.

Likewise, God calls upon us to aid him in his will not because he needs our help, but because he wants us to grow in our knowledge of his workings. By growing in knowledge of God, we grow closer to him. Thus, God’s calling upon us to help him in accomplishing his will does not show a need in God, but rather shows his mercy to teach us and shows a need in us to grow in knowledge.

We can almost hear the pain as we read the most overlooked, but painful words within the entire Bible, “And the LORD God said unto them, ‘Where are you?’” God knew where they were, He knew where they were hiding; His question was a rhetorical one. Man answered and admitted to his rebellion and Woman confessed what she had done. The march toward Calvary had begun.

In a small insignificant town in the Roman province of Judea, the Christ child was born. God in the flesh, Jesus Christ, Son of God who was present at creation and the Fall, had come to fix what was broken.

We cannot begin to fathom what the world looked like through the eyes of Christ. For Him to walk in human flesh amongst His creation, to see the effects of sin on His world, what did the incarnate God feel? “Where are you” He must have uttered to creation as He walked to the various towns of Judea.

God asked Man and Woman where they were, but He did not wait on them to come find Him. He instead went into the world to find them – for this is the reason all of creation occurred, the reason He allowed sin, so that He might demonstrate His love for us in this; while we rebelled against Him, He died for us.

God incarnate, who cursed Man for his rebellion, who sought after Man in the Garden, hung upon a cross. The crafty serpent of old thought he had defeated God, but Christ arose, solidifying His solution. The serpent had bruised His heal, but He had crushed the head of the serpent.

“Where are you?” His question echoes throughout human history up to the present age and all the way to when He returns. “Where are you?” As He watches humanity rip itself apart, as He watches humanity turn against Him on a daily basis, He must be asking, “Where are you?”

Yet, in this rebellious world there are those who are covered by His Son. Just as Man and Woman needed a covering to hide their nakedness, their shame, we too have a covering to hide our wickedness, our shame. Our covering is the blood of Christ.

Those who belong to Him shall one day walk with Him again. There is a future hope, an end to our suffering, a time where we will not sin, where we will be done in our rebellion.

There will be a time when those who suffer from physical ailments, from these disease-ridden bodies, shall be given new bodies where such pain is gone. The blind will look into the eyes of Christ and see the wondrous acts of His love. The deaf shall hear with clarity the songs of the angels praising God almighty. The hungry will feast with the Lord at the great banquet table. The orphans shall feel the loving embrace of their Heavenly Father and no longer feel the sting of loneliness.

There will be a time when the oppressed shall experience freedom in the presence of the Spirit. Those who are bed-ridden, those who are diseased, those who suffer constant pain will walk amongst God’s beautiful creation, dancing and leaping across His land with Christ by their sides.

But all of this pales in comparison to the reconciliation we will have with Him. We will no longer offend Him. We will no longer contradict Him. We will be in perfect union with the Father as we fall down and worship Him eternally. We will no longer have to hear those painful and cursed words, “Where are you?” We shall instead hear His soothing words of grace; “I have found you.”

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

This was a scheduled post. I am currently out of town and subsequently have turned comments off since I cannot moderate or interact with commenters. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns about this post, please feel free to contact me.

For instance, even if we say that God’s emotions are higher than our own – such as when he’s angry he’s not holding some different quality of angry as we do, but instead holds the entire property of angry without actualizing on the entire property – the critic could point out that God’s emotional state is still a reaction to something we have done. When we look to Moses, God changed his mind after he listened to Moses, that is, he reacted to Moses.

If God reacts to us then that means he is, at times, moved by us. Many lay theologians, pastors, and even professional theologians argue that while God is immutable, by creating us he opened himself up to be moved by us at times. Such a view, however, ignores that (1) Scripture is emphatic that God did not lower himself to relate to us, but rather raises us up to relate to him and (2) God still had mutability within his nature under such a view. If God lowered himself in creation so that he could be moved by his creation at times, that means within his nature he changed from immutable to mutable, which would indicate that he was never immutable to begin with. As we discovered earlier, if anything has mutability within its nature, that is it has the potential to change, then it is mutable. Immutable beings must be immutable by nature. If God lowered himself in the act of creation, then he is not immutable and therefore we must abandon the idea of the Christian God.

The other alternative is to play hermeneutical gymnastics with such passages so we can escape saying that God actually reacted. Such a defense, however, compromises the integrity of Scripture by reading into Scripture.

Instead, I think the best defense is to fall back on God’s transcendence and argue that his reactions are not like our reactions. When we react, our reactions are usually “knee-jerk” reactions. We see a car cut us off and we immediately get angry without thinking about the situation. With God, he knew what the car would do before the event happened and therefore knew how he would react. If he were talking to the driver, since he would be dealing with a human he would react in a way that we would understand, which is anger.

But the argument is that by acknowledging God reacts we acknowledge that God can be moved, which makes him mutable, but such an argument is flawed. God’s reaction is his choice, just as we have a choice to many of our reactions. The difference is that we are attempting to overcome our passions, thus our natural instincts will often inhibit us from having proper reaction. God, on the other hand, is without passions (since he lacks a body) and therefore has complete control over how he will react if he chooses to react at all.

While God reacts, the reaction is his choice, meaning that he is truly the mover and is still unmoved. Since God is the originator of his choice we cannot say that any action moves him, but rather that God chooses to acknowledge that an event has transpired and then originates a response to the event (though he does not need to).

If God uses x to get from A to B rather than using y, the change did not result from any external factor forcing God to choose x, but rather because he chose to use y. To be moved means that God is controlled by the situation and must act within that situation. If, however, God has the choice to act within a situation or not to act within a situation, then he is not controlled by the situation, meaning he is not moved by the situation. When God appears angry, it is because his anger is an appropriate response to human actions and is an emotion that we understand, but he chose to be angry and was not forced to be angry by a series of events.

The question, “Why does God react to us if he is mutable” is therefore a flawed question. The argument assumes that we can be the efficient cause of God’s actions. The question assumes that God reacts immediately to us without foreseeing our action or that his emotion is actually emotion and not the way God chooses to communicate to us (since we communicate by emotion as well as by words). The argument is flawed because God is his own efficient cause when it comes to choice.

All of this indicates that God chooses to react as he desires; if his reaction suits his ends (the formal cause) then he will act, making him and not the event the efficient cause of his actions. Thus, God reacts, but not in the way that we react. Though we can sometimes choose to react to a situation (and therefore become our own efficient cause), we sometimes react by instinct and therefore it is the situation that caused our actions. God, however, being omnipotent is never limited by a situation and therefore can choose to react.

Finally, such arguments ignore the infallible knowledge and foreknowledge of God. Often our reactions are motivated by our ignorance of the situation. We did not know the situation would arise nor what will happen after the situation. To God, however, everything is mysteriously ever-present to him, therefore he knows the situation will occur and what will occur after the situation. Since God knows what will occur, he knows how he will react to the situation (if he chooses to react), meaning that God’s reaction is not like our reaction.

In all of this, God does not change. He is the efficient cause of his own actions and is therefore immutable. None moves him, but rather he chooses whether or not he will move other things to achieve his will. Truly, God is above us and not like us and therefore we cannot base God’s experience off our experience.

____________________________________________________________________________

This was a scheduled post. I am currently out of town and subsequently have turned comments off since I cannot moderate or interact with commenters. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns about this post, please feel free to contact me.

What is this hope? This hope is that our trespasses might be forgiven. That we can stand before a just and holy God and have Him embrace us rather than condemn us. Our hope is that one day the weary may collapse into the arms of Christ, as He says, “Worry not my child, you are home now.” This hope is that one day loved ones will never have to say goodbye, children will never go hungry, innocence shall cover us all, and the evils that break this world shall once and for all be smitten by a just and holy God. Upon the cross, we find hope.

Our hope is not limited to the eternal. We hope that God will bring about His kingdom to this earth. We hope that He will give us the strength to help those who suffer through this existence. We hope that He will display His glory in all that we see. We hope in the sacrifice and resurrection of Christ. Upon the cross, we find hope.

We look upon the cross and see the Trinity apart – Jesus Christ, Son of God, forsaken by the Father on our accord. For all eternity, these three have had a loving fellowship: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Yet the prophet Isaiah tells us that God loves us so much that it pleased Him to crush Christ for our iniquities. Is God sadistic? Or does He love us so much that He knew in Christ’s suffering and death that we could be reconciled to God, and in this He took pleasure? Upon the cross, we find hope.

This is hope; that God sacrificed His Son Jesus Christ – a willing sacrifice who was not offered against His will or the will of His Father, but instead as a part of God’s will – as a ransom and substitution for our sins, that we might be reconciled to God. Upon the cross, we find hope.

There is hope for the hopeless. There is rest for the weary. Upon the cross, the sex slave finds a Lover who refuses to use her, but instead dies for Her to show her that she is truly loved. Upon the cross, the wife finds a man who would never lay a hand upon her, but instead would offer up His life so that she might be reconciled to God and know that she will – one day – escape her plight. Upon the cross, we see the death of death, God triumphing over that old enemy so that the widows and widowers will one day be reunited with their loves. Upon the cross, we see God’s hatred for sin and His resolve to destroy it. Upon the cross, we find our salvation from this broken world. Upon the cross, we find the Mender of this broken world. Upon the cross, we find hope.

If God is emotional, this would be indicative of change within God. It would mean that he can fluctuate in degrees of being angry, happy, sad, pleased, or any other range of emotions. Even though all of his emotional responses are justified, they serve to show that God does indeed change (or so the critic would have us believe).

The semantics of the argument are that if I do good works, God becomes happy with me, or increases in happiness to me. If I do something evil, then God becomes angry at me or is less pleased with me. All of this show God moving in degrees of one emotion to the other, which would indicate that God is mutable.

I do believe that there are two reasons why such a view is misguided. The first reason, which is the weaker of the reasons, is that Christ is still incarnate and still God. The second reason, which I believe to be stronger, is that God is not like man, thus we’re using the wrong standard to explain God’s emotions.

In dealing with the first explanation of how God has emotions, we must not forget that Christ did not abandon his human nature at the resurrection or at the assumption. Christ lives today and still holds on to his human nature and shares that nature with us. Thus, since Christ is God, it is very appropriate to say that God has emotions, that God shares in our joys, that God suffers when we suffer, and so on. But such statements should only be understood in light of the Incarnation.

Since Christ has a human nature, it is not impossible to suppose that He would “change his mind” without being changed. As a person he functions through both his divine and human natures, so when interacting with humans his human nature, which is limited just like our nature, could be what he operates through. This means that he could change his mind and it wouldn’t cause change within the divine essence, merely in the person of Christ (if we suppose change occurs when one changes one’s mind).

The problem with the above is that while it works philosophically, it is too problematic theologically. We could say that the effects of the Incarnation were something Christ had access to prior to the event of the Incarnation, but this then why have an Incarnation? If Christ were able to use the effects of the Incarnation prior to the Incarnation itself, then why be born of a virgin into human flesh? While I do believe there are responses to this, the entirety of the reply creates an unnecessary controversy for what is essentially a weak answer.

The second response to the critic – that God is totally above us and therefore our descriptions of him are inadequate – is a far superior response. In modern theology we have become too accustomed to speaking of God as solely immanent. While God is immanent, we must never forget that such immanence comes from the Incarnation. In light of this we must remember that God is still transcendent to His creation. Understanding that God is transcendent to his creation is vital in understanding how God can have emotions, but not be subject to change.

When we describe emotions we immediately have the context of human emotions in mind. The problem is that human emotions are shared attributes common among animals, not with God. When an animal encounters a dangerous situation the animal has the choice to flee or fight. If he flees, then instinctually his emotion of fear took over his actions. If he fights, then instinctually his emotion of anger took over his actions. Just like animals, human emotions are more often than not based upon our instincts. In fact, the goal of some moral codes is to overcome our instincts and to react rationally rather than emotionally; this is what it means to develop as a human. These types of emotions, the ones based upon instinct, are called passions.

The error is we often attribute our understanding of emotions onto God’s emotions. When God says he is angry we take what we understand “angry” to mean from our limited experience and apply it to God. The problem is that our emotions are linked to our having a body whereas God is without a body. While our emotions stem from our passions (which doesn’t make them wrong), God’s emotions stem from something else.

By saying that God’s emotions are different than our own emotions is not begging the question or asking someone to assume an immutably passionless God so I can prove an immutable passionless God. Rather, we understand that God must be without a body and since he is without a body he wouldn’t be subjected to passions. Passions arise from the animalistic side of humanity (we are rational animals), which is the side we share with creation and not with God, that is, our passions are not part of the divine image pressed upon us. Since we do not share this with God, while we might have passions, God does not.

To understand how our explanations of God are inadequate, we must first understand that we know things by their nature. We know what a bear is because we have examined the bear and know what “bearness” is. If your only experience in life is with a black bear, you will still know when you see a Grizzly bear or polar bear that you are dealing with a bear, even if you have no previous experience with these species of bear. The same stands true for humans, cats, dogs, tables, ships, or anything else in creation. We know what things are because we can examine them.

With God, we cannot examine him and therefore we cannot know what he is. This is why all theology concerning the nature of God is apophatic; we cannot say anything about the nature of God, merely what God is not. We can say that man is a rational animal because we partake in humanity. But we cannot put such a definition on God because we cannot examine God. What we know of God is not on our own accord, but on his. What we know of him is only what he chooses to reveal of himself.

Another way we come to know things in nature is by similarities. We can imagine creatures based upon other creatures that we’ve experienced. If I ask people to imagine a unicorn, most people will immediately think of a horse with a horn on its forehead, with some people thinking of a horse with wings and a horn on its forehead. The fact is, when I say “unicorn,” most people can imagine what a unicorn is because we are familiar with the mythology and with what a horse is. We can understand what a unicorn is because we have experienced a species similar to a unicorn, even though no unicorns actually exist. If I describe a Dodo bird to you, you will get an accurate understanding of what the bird is. This is because we understand different species of birds and we understand the genus that birds fall under. Therefore, if I say “the dodo bird has a beak,” you understand what a beak is in relation to other animals, so you can get an accurate ideas as to what the beak is on the dodo bird.

With God there is no equal to him, therefore we cannot understand God through some similar species. We do not know of anything as part of God’s genus, being, essence, or species, so he is beyond similarity.[1] God shares his being with no one, so we have nothing to compare to God. When God says, “I am angry,” we don’t know what it means for God to be angry. Certainly the existential aspect of “angry” means something completely different for a being who is infinite, powerful, and not subject to the passions as opposed to a finite and passionate being.

Some would say that because we are made in God’s image we can know what God means when he describes his emotional state, but I would argue that being made in his image proves we cannot know what he means when he describes his emotional state. If we think of a statue we instinctively know that the statue is a likeness of a person. Few people have asked if the sculpture David is actually the David spoken of in the Bible. In all sculptures, even when the statue shares a likeness with the human, such a likeness is lesser than what the human actually possesses. Likewise, though we are alive and not statues, being in God’s likeness still makes us lesser than Him. While we might experience anger and God might experience anger, his experience of anger will be significantly different than our experience of anger.

None of this says that God is not personal or that he lacks emotions, but rather that he is superpersonal. To be superpersonal means that God is above our experience of what it means to be personal. The best analogy I can think of is how dogs emotions are similar, but different from human emotions. While dogs certainly have emotions and those emotions are tied to us (as they are physical beings and share in our passions), their experience and expression of those emotions are vastly different from how a human experiences and expresses emotions. A dog will jump in your lap and lick your face to express happiness. A human will write a poem or move nature itself in honor of someone, which is a superior expression of happiness because it requires emotions.

God is much higher than us than we are to dogs. If our experience of emotions is superior to a dog’s experience of emotions, then God’s experience of emotions must be infinitely higher than our own experience.

Being made in God’s image means that we cannot understand how God is angry, happy, or any other emotional state, merely that he has those emotions. We cannot transpose how we function onto how God functions because he is higher than we are. This is because we’re a lesser image of God, not an exact copy. While God can sympathize with us and relate to us, this only comes through the Word and mostly through the Incarnation. The divine nature, however, is completely beyond us and therefore we cannot say, “Well I feel this way when happy, therefore God must feel the same way.”

Since God is transcendent it follows that our language about God is inadequate in terms of comprehensively understanding or describing any aspect of who he is. When we write of God and describe God we must understand that our language is analogous and not a literal description. To say God is good is not to describe a literal situation because our only experience of “good” comes from what we have done and seen others do. God is above that and therefore the best we can do is imagine the best “good” we possibly can and that would be analogous to God.

Such a teaching is actually what Christians have believed for a while and is found throughout Scripture. For instance, do we really believe that God has a right hand? Do we really believe that God is a rock? When we say that he has a right hand or that he is a rock, we are speaking analogously of God and not in a literal sense. To quote St. John,

“Since in sacred Scripture we find many things said symbolically of God as if He had a body, one should know that since we are men clothed in this gross flesh, we are unable to think or speak of the divine, lofty, and immaterial operations of the Godhead unless we have recourse to images, types, and symbols that correspond to our own nature…Thus, to put it simply, all these things which are affirmed of God as if He had a body contain some hidden meaning which, through things corresponding to our nature, teaches us things which exceed our nature – except it be something said respecting the presence of the Word of God in the flesh.” (St. John of Damascus, An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book I, chapter 12)

As St. John points out, everything in Scripture that speaks of God in human terms is an analogy about God that merely points to something higher (the lone exception being when it speaks of Christ, who is God in the flesh). Scripture makes appeals and even God speaks of himself in human terms so that we can know something about God rather than nothing, but such descriptions do not compressively explain God or fully explain what God is like.

Though God is transcendent and beyond comprehension, we an still have substantial knowledge of God. That is, though we cannot say what the essence of God is, we can say what it is not and we can still speak of God. But our ability to speak of God comes through the Incarnation; absent of Christ becoming flesh, we could not know God.

Imagine if you were attempting to explain to someone what it was like to go to the Pacific ocean if that person had never seen an ocean. While you could give that person a substantial description, to the point that the person understood what the Pacific looked like, all the knowledge the person had would be analogous. You would have to appeal to lakes he had been to or pools any other feature in order to describe the Pacific. The less experience he had with other objects similar to the Pacific, the harder and more inadequate the explanation would become.

Likewise, with God, since nothing is his equal or comparable to him, everything we can know about him is purely by analogy and therefore absent of comprehension. If we say that God loves like we love or suffers like we suffer or regrets like we regret or changes his mind like we change our mind, we are claiming comprehension. We know what it is to experience and do all those things, so to say that God does such things in the same way we do is to say that we comprehend some aspect of the divine nature, which is impossible.

In this way, God is known to us, but remains a mystery. For those who say, “But if God is ever-present in his creation, how is he transcendent,” I would reply that God’s transcendence is not reliant upon distance, but rather upon magnitude; God is transcendent not because he is removed from us by time, but because he is greater than us in all aspects.

When we say that God suffers with us or God has emotions, this is only true insofar as we are speaking of the Incarnation. Beyond that, God does not have emotions. God does not suffer. But this is where many critics make a mistake and say, “Then you’re saying God is cold and uncaring.” If I say that God is without emotion then people automatically assume that I must be supporting the opposite.

Such an allegation simply holds no merit. If God is beyond speaking in terms of saying he has emotions, then he is equally beyond speaking to say that God is cold. To say that God doesn’t have emotions is not to say God doesn’t care, but rather to say that he is higher than us and does not have emotions in the same way we have emotions.

Again, we know what it is to suffer, but it is improper to say that God (the divine nature) suffers because he is beyond us. We know what it is to be uncaring, so it is improper for us to say that God is uncaring. To say that God is not loving does not mean he hates us, but rather his love is so far beyond our understand and experience of love that we cannot compare our love to his love.

I am saying that when we say that God doesn’t have emotions or that God doesn’t have regret, I am not implying the opposite. Rather I’m saying that we do not know what it means for God to act in regret, in anger or in love, because he is above us and our knowledge of these things only comes from our own experience. To admit the negative of a positive is to compromise God’s transcendence; since God’s essence is beyond us, we cannot define his essence. This means anything we say about him will always be an analogy and we cannot interpret Scripture to mean that God does and feels things in the same way we do and feel things.

Returning to the original idea that certain passages show God has emotions or show that he changes his mind and can regret, we see that such interpretations are faulty because they put God on our terms. We must never forget that anything we say about the divine essence must be done by analogy, whether we use the phrase “God’s right hand” or “God changed his mind.” For our only experience of repenting and changing our minds comes from ourselves, who are imperfect. If God is perfect, however, then his experience will be superior to ours. Thus, when God “repents,” there is no change within him. Something occurs, but it is not done in the way we are familiar with.

All of Scripture is inspired, but still written through a human perspective. Everything said of God, unless it is about God in the flesh, is an analogy and should not be taken literally, but rather we should accept that it all points to a deeper truth about God. Through these analogies we know God and relate to him, but he still remains an eternal mystery to us.

____________________________________________________________________________

This was a scheduled post. I am currently out of town and subsequently have turned comments off since I cannot moderate or interact with commenters. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns about this post, please feel free to contact me.

O foolish Man! Do you not see that you are repeating the mistakes of your father Adam? He saw the fruit, the object of his desire, as a way to be like God. He knew that if he were like God he could be independent of God and so he ate of the fruit. Why do you condemn him, but eat of the fruit daily? Do you not see that sin is rebellion against God? The root of sin is the desire for autonomy. You justify your sins so that you can be independent of God.

But do not be so foolish O Man. God is not moved and he has no equal! You think you can declare something is not a sin or an offense to God? You think you can tell God that he is wrong in declaring your personal taste a sin? Move the stars and then you might have something to say. Bring matter into existence by your very word and you might be able to approach God. Be holy in all things and you might be able to converse with the Almighty on what is good.

Do you not realize that he is all that is good, that goodness exudes from him? To question what is good is to question God.  Are you so bold as to question God’s knowledge of himself? Are you so bold as to question the all-knowing and all-good God on if he knows what is best for us?

You continue in your sin because you are blinded by your pleasure. You desire to be the best amongst men for your own vainglory. What does it benefit you? What do you gain? Do you not realize that you will die in a short while? You are nothing in the comparison of time. You toil for your own wants and desires and in so doing establish a legacy of vapor. You would do well to spray a mist into the air and declare, “This is my legacy!” For that is all you are in broad span of time, a vapor that is lost in a few seconds.

But you pursue these temporary pleasures because you live for seconds. The wise man lives for God and realizes that God is in eternity, thus the temporal pleasures of the flesh mean nothing to the wise man. But you are a fool who cannot see past tomorrow. Do you not realize that your life shall be demanded of you at some point? What will you have to show for it?

Rather than living for yourself, live for God. We are temporal and therefore all that we do will not matter after we are gone, but if we live for God then we will be immortal. Let your actions be founded in him in all that you do. It is through his eternality that we find our own eternality.

Turn from your sin and cease your rebellion against God. It is a battle that you will not win. Instead, submit to him through your free will before it is too late. Submit to him and follow him in his ways, for they are holy and good. Know that he will bring us no harm, but will only bring us good. Seek not after yourself, but instead after your Creator, for this is your only hope.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

This was a scheduled post. I am currently out of town and subsequently have turned comments off since I cannot moderate or interact with commenters. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns about this post, please feel free to contact me.

The first passage that critics can bring up is Genesis 6:6, which states that the Lord repented (or regretted) making humans because of their sin. The critic would say that by not having such foreknowledge of humans, God was unable to see that his creation would turn against him in such a horrible way. Thus, he had to react to humans and deal with them in a different way. He had to change how he dealt with humans; rather than walking with them or trying to send a prophet, he sent a flood. The important part of the argument is that God supposedly had to change how he dealt with humans, which would indicate a change in God.

The second passage critics could turn to is Exodus 32:14. In this passage, God has caught Israel sinning and threatens to wipe them out and restart with Moses. Moses intercedes on behalf of the Hebrews and God changes his mind and decides to stick with his original plan. The critic will point out that we have God saying one thing and then being convinced to do another. The critic will point to this as proof that God is possible of change and therefore applies to the idea of an infinite regress.

Such arguments do have valid claims, especially if we take the Scriptures prima facie and believe that God can change. The Scriptures seem to clearly say that God changes. In fact, there are numerous Scriptures that would indicate that God changes his mind and that he gave up his foreknowledge when he created humans so that he could interact with humans. But I believe such interpretations are misguided.

While I agree that God can change his mind (though it is different from when we change our mind, but I shall get to that), in doing so he does not change who he is nor does he gain or lose anything of value in his being. If God changes his mind on something, but still maintains his will as the end point of his action, then what has changed in God? Has he gained or diminished in goodness? Has anything changed within his nature at all? The answer is no, in changing his mind, but maintaining his will; God did not change even if his action did.

If we imagine that someone is trying to get from A to B, but x, y, and z are all equally legitimate paths getting there. Though the three paths are different, all three are equally good and will lead to the same result with the same amount of goodness. Now, if God were to completely change his direction on B and find a better end or a better way that he was originally going to choose, then this would indicate a change in God. He would become aware of an end previously unknown to him and, by knowing it, would gain in knowledge of obtaining that end, which would indicate an increase in his knowledge. This would mean that God changed. If, however, A and B remain the same, whether God chooses x, y, or z is quite irrelevant; all paths are equally known to God and equally good and equally achieve the end of B, so if God chooses path x and then chooses path y, nothing has changed in God.

Likewise, we must not forget that God is working with imperfect creatures. Humans are imperfect both in nature and in morality. We are imperfect in nature in that we are not complete, that is, we are contingent beings. We are imperfect morally because we have chosen evil. This means our free will choices will not always align with God’s will and thus he must account for that. It is not beyond reason (in fact, it is actually very reasonable) to believe that God foresaw our actions and planned accordingly to our actions. In light of this, God opened up different paths and allowed for different approaches in accounting for human free will in order to achieve his end.[1] This allows for God to achieve his ends regardless of human free will (and actually use free will to his benefit). In all of this, he does not change.

A final example we can look to is to imagine we have a traveler named James. James is traveling from Cleveland to Miami to enjoy better weather and hopefully to have a more successful career. Now, James can take a plane, he can walk, or he can fly from Cleveland to Miami. In each case, there are different routes he can take, all of which will get him to Miami. Let’s say that James has to be in Miami by August and it’s the end of July. In that case, we know that he can’t walk. Thus, in moving from point A to point B, James cannot choose walking because it would not get him to point B under the conditions point B is to be arrived in. Both a car and a plan would work as well. In both cases, James is left with a limited number of routes to choose from. James looks and sees that while some routes take longer, all the routes that get him from Cleveland to Miami by August are equally good; each one helps him obtain his goal. No matter which route James chooses, he is not changed by that decision. If he chooses to drive one route, but then decides to fly another route, James as James is not changed nor is anything added or taken away from James.

The same holds true with God. Though God may say he will go one way and then opt for the other, it is not because the other way has just become apparent to him and he learned of the other way’s existence. Rather, he has always known about it, but has chosen a different path to account for human free will. In all of this, there is no reason to believe that God has changed in his nature by increasing or decreasing.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

This was a scheduled post. I am currently out of town and subsequently have turned comments off since I cannot moderate or interact with commenters. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns about this post, please feel free to contact me.

As Susan falls to the floor she catches a sight of her son out the corner of her eye. As she falls down she motions for him to go back to his room. Before he can turn away, he witnesses his father – in a drunken rage – grab his mother by her hair and begin the process of beating her all over again. The son will face similar beatings as he grows up and proceed to unleash those beatings on his wife and children one day. This world is broken.

Robert sits in the chair next to his dying wife. He holds her hand as she struggles with every breath. The cancer has taken so much of her away. As he kisses her on her forehead, he watches painfully as she slips into eternity. Years of love, all the planning, promising to spend the rest of their lives together all comes to an end as her heart stops beating. In his early thirties, he must now face the fact that he is a single father – though he wants to mourn, he has no time because he has to take care of his daughter by himself. This world is broken.

Many people would attempt to deny that sin exists or that humans freely choose to sin. They would argue that this world is slowly progressing toward a better position. They would argue that humans are basically good. Yet, to the oppressed, to the poor, to the destitute, to those who’s lives have been blackened by the dark soot of sin, evil is very much a part of this world. This world is broken.

There is a lot of talk about ‘hope’. When asked to define hope, people merely say, “That things will get better.” They place their hope in causes and in politicians, not aware that their hope will be crushed to the ground. The same people who rejoice over the change they think has come will one-day gnash their teeth at the ‘hope’ they once saw. No politician, no human, can offer hope when that person is also in need of hope.  Yet, people continue to place their hope in people and institutions that often cause the darkness that we see in this world. This world is broken.

This world is weary. Children are suffering from starvation; wives are being infected with HIV by their promiscuous husbands; mothers are suffering through sleepless nights, wondering where their drug-addicted children are; little girls who should be innocent are being sold into the most perverse forms of slavery; husbands are wondering how they can provide for their families during tough economic times; our society is being lied to and being told that true happiness is found in an expensive image; this world is broken.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

This was a scheduled post. I am currently out of town and subsequently have turned comments off since I cannot moderate or interact with commenters. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns about this post, please feel free to contact me.

If it can be shown that the God of the Bible changes then we must be open-minded enough to change our beliefs. It is unfair for the Christian to require the non-theist to be open-minded in considering the existence of God, but to remain close-minded in considering the existence of his own God. Therefore, if it can be shown that the Christian God changes, either the Damascene Cosmological argument is wrong or the God of the Bible does not exist.

What follows was no easy undertaking and was in fact much more difficult to write than the first part of this argument. I would make an argument for God changing, answer the argument, and find a retort to my own answer. I did this until I could go no further on each argument; I did not do this to solidify my beliefs, but rather to test them. I will say that while challenged, my beliefs withstood the test. I did not create any strawman and any critic of Christianity who would like to point out that the Damascene Cosmological argument contradicts Christianity should be pleased with the objections against Christianity I raise.

The one thing I would ask is for people not to think that when I appeal to mystery I am using my philosophical “mulligan.” Rather, since God is above us it is impossible to comprehend him. Since we must speak of God absent of comprehension, this will ultimately lead to some very unsatisfactory responses and beliefs. Sadly, this is how Christianity must function at its deeper levels, where we can find a logically consistent belief and one that might even be factually compelling, but still leaves us unsatisfied emotionally. But that feeling of being unsatisfied is not enough to toss out the argument; even if we don’t feel an argument stratifies our curiosity, if the argument seems plausible and is non-contradictory, we must allow for its possibility.

My plan for the next few posts is to deal with a few of the problems critics could bring up concerning the Christian God changing. The first objection would be that God is said to have changed His mind or “repented” of his actions. The second objection would deal with God’s emotional reactions to humans. In both of these objections, God is seemingly moved by his creation, but an immutable being cannot be moved, because to move is to change and to change is to require a creator. The third objection deals with God’s need to create and whether or not it was a need after all; if God needed to do something, then he was absent of that something. By being absent of something, he would have held within his nature to increase his quality, therefore making him mutable. The final objection deals with matters relating to the Incarnation and whether or not God changed in the Incarnation.

In all of this, I have done my best to explore each argument fairly. In every objection, I reasoned my way to a conclusion that satisfied me, was logically consistent, fit with what we know about God from the Bible, and should be considered orthodox (as my answer matches those of the Church fathers and, more importantly, Scripture). If you do not find the same in what I have to say then please let me know.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

This was a scheduled post. I am currently out of town and subsequently have turned comments off since I cannot moderate or interact with commenters. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns about this post, please feel free to contact me.

Job sat there, having received counsel from his friends on why evil had befallen him. Job had lost his children, lost his servants, lost his home, lost his livelihood; everything that brought Job comfort was destroyed. Truly he was a broken man.

He cried out to God. He demanded to know why God would allow this. God responded in power. God reminded Job that He created this world and that He is in charge of it. He reminded Job that creation is His and that He is sovereign over it. Nothing occurs without His knowledge. Look at what He says to Job:

Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Dress for action like a man; I will question you, and you make it known to me. Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements—surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Or who shut in the sea with doors when it burst out from the womb, when I made clouds its garment and thick darkness its swaddling band, and prescribed limits for it and set bars and doors, and said, ‘Thus far shall you come, and no farther, and here shall your proud waves be stayed’?

Have you commanded the morning since your days began, and caused the dawn to know its place, that it might take hold of the skirts of the earth, and the wicked be shaken out of it? It is changed like clay under the seal, and its features stand out like a garment. From the wicked their light is withheld, and their uplifted arm is broken.

Have you entered into the springs of the sea, or walked in the recesses of the deep? Have the gates of death been revealed to you, or have you seen the gates of deep darkness? Have you comprehended the expanse of the earth? Declare, if you know all this.

Where is the way to the dwelling of light, and where is the place of darkness, that you may take it to its territory and that you may discern the paths to its home? You know, for you were born then, and the number of your days is great!

Have you entered the storehouses of the snow, or have you seen the storehouses of the hail, which I have reserved for the time of trouble, for the day of battle and war? What is the way to the place where the light is distributed, or where the east wind is scattered upon the earth?

Who has cleft a channel for the torrents of rain and a way for the thunderbolt, to bring rain on a land where no man is, on the desert in which there is no man, to satisfy the waste and desolate land, and to make the ground sprout with grass?

Has the rain a father, or who has begotten the drops of dew? From whose womb did the ice come forth, and who has given birth to the frost of heaven? The waters become hard like stone, and the face of the deep is frozen.

Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades or loose the cords of Orion? Can you lead forth the Mazzaroth in their season, or can you guide the Bear with its children? Do you know the ordinances of the heavens? Can you establish their rule on the earth?

Can you lift up your voice to the clouds, that a flood of waters may cover you? Can you send forth lightnings, that they may go and say to you, ‘Here we are’? Who has put wisdom in the inward parts or given understanding to the mind? Who can number the clouds by wisdom? Or who can tilt the waterskins of the heavens, when the dust runs into a mass and the clods stick fast together?

Can you hunt the prey for the lion, or satisfy the appetite of the young lions, when they crouch in their dens or lie in wait in their thicket? Who provides for the raven its prey, when its young ones cry to God for help, and wander about for lack of food?

-       Job 38:2 -42

In all of this, our God answers in the affirmative. Out of nothing, God created all things. Within nothing, He spoke into the void and brought us into existence. From the dust of the earth, He made humans. He breathed life into us. And He holds ultimate power over everything.

We can learn the natural cycles of the earth, but we must remember these were instituted by God and are sustained by Him. This is the majesty of God in creation. We cannot look at a mountain peak without acknowledging His glory. We cannot look at a newborn child and ignore His image implanted within us. We cannot look at this world and deny He created and He is still in charge.

This is the beauty of God’s creation – that it is done out of His love for Himself and us.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

This was a scheduled post. I am currently out of town and subsequently have turned comments off since I cannot moderate or interact with commenters. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns about this post, please feel free to contact me.