There are two prevalent and growing heresies relating to the undermining of the immutability of God that we should all be aware of.
Process Theology and Open Theism are kindred beliefs that begin with the fundamental thesis that reality is changing. All reality. And so, God is changing. There is an interdependance in all of reality and so God is dependant on other reality and must change in response to those other realities. God is in process, processing new situations and knowledge as they come into being.
Those who promote these beliefs say that they do not deny that God is all-powerful and sovereign and that He can ordain and control future events, He just chooses not to do so and leaves the future open to the choice of man. They say God is all-knowing but the future does not exist yet so God cannot know it yet. God, for example only knows all that can be known at the moment. So, God responds and has to change plans due to the changes in history as it unfolds.
Some of these thoughts may not seem to be that radical and it is in it’s subtle undermining of the character of God that these beliefs can be successful. It is an undermining and in many statements, an outright denial that God is in fact all-knowing of the past, present, and future as scripture clearely declares Him to be. It is a denial of the sovereignty of God and the biblical statements that He does have an immutable and eternal plan that He is working out in time. It is a denial of the infinity of God and the perfection of God. Matt Slick, serving with the Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry explains:
In Open Theism God can make mistakes because He does not know all things that will occur in the future . . . If God cannot know the future, then does it not follow logically that God is limited by time, the very thing He created? According to them, God also takes risks and adapts to the free-will choices of people. . . God can change His mind on issues depending on what He learns and what He discovers people do. Usually, God's change of mind is due to Him being surprised by something for which He didn't plan or expect. . . . My opinion is that openness is a dangerous teaching that undermines the sovereignty, majesty, infinitude, knowledge, existence, and glory of God and exalts the nature and condition of man's own free will. . . . This is absolutely and definitely a reduction in the quality, nature, and majesty of God. It is a bedrock for further heresy. And only time will tell what sort of depraved and twisted lies will come out of that fertile ground of heresy. (Excerpts from several pages at http://www.carm.org/open-theism)
Note: For a more complete and excellent study on Open Theism, please see http://www.carm.org/open-theism or the book, What Does God Know and When Does He Know It? The Current Controversy over Divine Foreknowledge by Millard Erickson
Next (72) The Immutability of God - Conclusion
I mean this with full respect. Why do you use the term heresy? God's knowledge of the future is not listed in any of the creeds the early church believed in - Apostles Creed, Nicene Creed.
ReplyDeleteThis is what I am thinking.... the idea that God is immutable was an idea that crept into the church due to the influence of Greek Philosophy in the first 3 or 4 hundred years of the church. After Augustine it became the defacto belief. And has become so entrenced that people assume it is biblical. Hence, I believe it is a 'straw man' to say people are heretics when they don't believe in God's Immutability when I don't think that characteristic is Biblical anyway.
There are many Bible passages that indicate that God does change through what happens and in reaction to people's choices eg Regretting that he had made man at the time of Noah, and passages like 'Now I know that you hold me first (can't remember the wording)' to Abraham as he was willing to sacrific Isaac.
Some Open Theists believe what they believe because of the Bible not because of Philosophy. Hence, perhaps the link between Process Theology needs to be broken here. Perhaps it is better to say that Process Theologians have some beliefs in common with Open theists - but that is probably more coincidental than anything.
I think a God who can change is superior to one that can't. If a person came across someone deeply upset and didn't change in empathy to that need - instead remained as they were - then I perceive that to be a weakness not a strength.
Again I mean this with full respect but it seems the word heresy is too easily applied. Do you call someone a heretic because they have a different view than you on Baptism? No, because it isn't regarded as a central tenant of the faith. I think God's knowledge of the future fits into the same category of allowing a breath of interpretation.
The immutability of God is not dependant on the prominence of it in early Church history as it is rooted in the scriptures I have sighted in previous posts. Its absence from early creeds does not mean it was not believed. There are many specific aspects of God's character that are not in the creeds.
ReplyDeleteI believe previous posts lay a strong fondation fot the biblical doctrine of immutability. It is rooted in His omniscience and eternal decrees,
God does not respond because He sees or experiences the acts of man in time. God has decreed time and knows the acts of man before they happen. God doesn't happen to come across a person who is upset and act in empathy. God has been orchestrating that person's life and has chosen before any of these events happened how He would respond.
I repectfully disagree that the word heresy is applicable to Process Theology and Open Theism as they both deny the biblical teaching of immutability and omniscience.
Thank you for the challenge!
The theory of relativity can support God's omnipresence since time and space are both relative and dependent on matter. If matter is the basis of time and space, and God is not material, it follows that God doesn't have time nor is bound by it. If God creates matter, he also creates time. Common man, process theology is weird. God looks like the "ultimate Philosopher" who thinks like us rather than the object of philosophy.
ReplyDelete