Immutability of God.

[DesertBerean]

You keep making this sort of point as though no one understood it. No one is saying that you hold to Mormon or Jehovah Witness teachings. We all understand that isn't the case quite well. The reason why the comparison comes up at all is because, like them, you have invented a Christological doctrine not found within traditional orthodox Christian thinking. And also like many unorthodox teachers, you say that the holy scripture and the Bible is to be the final authority in these matters. The Way International, the cult that I came out of said the exact same thing. In fact, they claimed that we were the only ones who actually held to the holy scripture, and that the Bible was the final authority (its the reason they rejected the early Creeds). So, when you say that you hold to the scriptures and the Bible, that doesn't impress anyone. Everyone says that!

You came out of the Way International? Oh Lord.

[Adrift]

You came out of the Way International? Oh Lord.

Yep. Parents became members in the early 70s. My brother and I were born and raised in it.

[Sparko]

They have a "begotten" god (John 1:18). And they hold that the pre-incarnate Christ was God's first creation (Colossians 1:15; Revelation 3:14). They add the indefinite article in John 1:1 to claim He was a god, not God.

From their own translation:
". . . Before me there was no God formed, and after me there continued to be none. I—I am Jehovah, and besides me there is no savior." -- Isaiah 43:10, 11. NWT.

Which contradicts "a god" and Jesus being any kind of savior not being Jehovah. Of course they have the gospel wrong too. [Only the 144,000 can be born from God {born again}, and they deny the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.]

They deny that the Son of God is a different person from the Father.

". . . It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me. . . ." -- John 8:17, 18.

". . . But of that day and [that] hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. . . ." -- Mark 13:32.

Now from TWeb's Mission statement:

Scriptures
All of the Scriptures (the Bible consisting of Old and New Testaments) to be the final authoritative source for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness.

That the holy Scripture, the Bible is to be the final authority in those matters. I agree. I also hold the holy Scripture as such to be more than adequate in that regard.

My point is that all modern bibles are TRANSLATIONS which were interpreted in different ways. And even then people will read into the text what they want to see. That is why we need to check our private interpretations against others and history. It is easy to get some wrong ideas if you are not careful. The bible isn't an instruction manual or manual of doctrines. It is stories and events that happened in history mostly.

My view is against those heresies you cited. And if the truth of the word of God is understood. it is more than adequate to prevent those errors.

No it isn't. The mere fact that there are many cults based on even the same english translations we use (KJV, NIV, etc) shows that.

No one here has as yet cited a holy Scripture which refutes what I have attempted to explain.

I am sure they have. But to be truthful, your posts are pretty confusing in your explaining what you are even talking about. You have provided no scriptures that supports your ideas about immutability to the point of not being able to create, or act in time, and your solution to give some "temporal" pre-incarnation nature to Christ which basically transforms into his incarnation.

I am not against changing my mind, where I see I am wrong. But just saying I'm wrong because how I understand something does not agree with some statement of faith as supposed. Does not show me I am mistaken. What ever the truth is that I what I am interested in. I do not like being told that I believe things I never said.

Then you need to be clearer in your explanations. We can only go by what we read. When you come up with some "truth" that nobody ever has come up with before in thousands of years of bible history, then you should be suspicious of your idea, and check it against what the church has always held to and what it believes today. Billions of Christians have a better chance of being correct than you do. That is why I suggested talking to your pastor about it.

Hay, Tweb is the best set of forums for this type of discussion.

Thank you. We are not trying ostracize you here. The difference in the faith tags "Christian" and "Christian (other)" or something like that is just that we have certain areas that are meant for discussing Christian orthodox doctrine, and if we allowed someone who has ideas that are not orthodox (and by orthodox, I mean traditionally held views, not the denomination Orthodox) then the area will end up turning into a wrestling ring as people argue about doctrine, like we are doing here. So if someone is asked to change their faith tag to something other than Christian, it doesn't mean we think they are unsaved. Just enough out of bounds of traditional Christianity that we need to restrict them from posting in orthodox Christian areas for the sake of the site dynamics.

[37818]

My point is that all modern bibles are TRANSLATIONS which were interpreted in different ways. And even then people will read into the text what they want to see. That is why we need to check our private interpretations against others and history. It is easy to get some wrong ideas if you are not careful. The bible isn't an instruction manual or manual of doctrines. It is stories and events that happened in history mostly.

What do you understand, " . . .All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: . . ." to mean?

No it isn't. The mere fact that there are many cults based on even the same english translations we use (KJV, NIV, etc) shows that.

There are more counterfeits of truth, being that genuine Christianity is the truth.

I am sure they have. But to be truthful, your posts are pretty confusing in your explaining what you are even talking about. You have provided no scriptures that supports your ideas about immutability to the point of not being able to create, or act in time, and your solution to give some "temporal" pre-incarnation nature to Christ which basically transforms into his incarnation.

Temporal has to do with time and change. Immutability has to do with what does not change. What is so difficult About that distinction? The Biblical truth is the pre-incarnate Christ is the sole reason for creation (Colossians 1:16-18). Do not assume things I am not saying. When God created time He created its eternity without beginning without end. ". . . from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God."-- Psalm 90:2.

Then you need to be clearer in your explanations. We can only go by what we read. When you come up with some "truth" that nobody ever has come up with before in thousands of years of bible history, then you should be suspicious of your idea, and check it against what the church has always held to and what it believes today. Billions of Christians have a better chance of being correct than you do. That is why I suggested talking to your pastor about it.

I do not have a corner on truth all to myself. No one does. John 1:1-2 says two things about the Word, that He was "with God" [to, facing God] and "was God" [v.3]. With the emphasis on being "with God" [v.2]. As I read it, understand it, it says the pre-incarnate only-begotten was both someone other than God and was God the Creator [vs. 10, 14].

Thank you. We are not trying ostracize you here. The difference in the faith tags "Christian" and "Christian (other)" or something like that is just that we have certain areas that are meant for discussing Christian orthodox doctrine, and if we allowed someone who has ideas that are not orthodox (and by orthodox, I mean traditionally held views, not the denomination Orthodox) then the area will end up turning into a wrestling ring as people argue about doctrine, like we are doing here. So if someone is asked to change their faith tag to something other than Christian, it doesn't mean we think they are unsaved. Just enough out of bounds of traditional Christianity that we need to restrict them from posting in orthodox Christian areas for the sake of the site dynamics.

[Adrift]

If the divine nature is immutable to the point of being completely static, then how was Jesus raised from the dead? How was the Father able to communicate his will to his Son? James 1 tells us that God is unchanging, and yet he is the Father of lights, and the giver of every perfect gift (including wisdom and the crown of life), that he gave birth to us through the message of truth. How is he able to do these things if he is completely static?

[Sparko]

What do you understand, " . . .All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: . . ." to mean?

What do you take THIS to mean?

2 Peter 1:20 (ESV) knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation.

Temporal has to do with time and change. Immutability has to do with what does not change. What is so difficult About that distinction? The Biblical truth is the pre-incarnate Christ is the sole reason for creation (Colossians 1:16-18). Do not assume things I am not saying. When God created time He created its eternity without beginning without end. ". . . from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God."-- Psalm 90:2.
I do not have a corner on truth all to myself. No one does. John 1:1-2 says two things about the Word, that He was "with God" [to, facing God] and "was God" [v.3]. With the emphasis on being "with God" [v.2]. As I read it, understand it, it says the pre-incarnate only-begotten was both someone other than God and was God the Creator [vs. 10, 14]

Do you see three natures there? No. You see ONE God and multiple persons. The preincarnate son is of the same nature as God. That is why he is God. There is only one God. He was "with God" because it is speaking of the Son here, and he is a distinct person from the Father and the Holy Spirit. It doesn't say he had two natures before the incarnation. He took on his second nature (man) when he was born. Then he had two natures, God and Man. Before that he had only one nature: God.

The actual point of John 1:1 has to do with the first words: In the beginning. Just like Genesis 1:1. John is making the point that the son was not created but was always there and is God.

[Adrift]

Do you see three natures there? No. You see ONE God and multiple persons. The preincarnate son is of the same nature as God. That is why he is God. There is only one God. He was "with God" because it is speaking of the Son here, and he is a distinct person from the Father and the Holy Spirit. It doesn't say he had two natures before the incarnation. He took on his second nature (man) when he was born. Then he had two natures, God and Man. Before that he had only one nature: God.

The actual point of John 1:1 has to do with the first words: In the beginning. Just like Genesis 1:1. John is making the point that the son was not created but was always there and is God.

Yeah, it was pointed out to him that he was confusing persons with natures in the other thread, but he denied that that was what he was doing. The orthodox view would have us believe that the Holy Spirit was also God, and with God, but I think this is something 37818 would deny. He'd only go so far as saying that the Holy Spirit was God, but not that he was with God.

[37818]

What do you take THIS to mean?

I understand it to mean just what it says. And I take it as holy Scripture to be the final authority.

2 Peter 1:20 (ESV) knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation.

Because the holy Scripture comes of God's Spirit not mans (v.21).

Do you see three natures there? No. You see ONE God and multiple persons. The preincarnate son is of the same nature as God. That is why he is God. There is only one God. He was "with God" because it is speaking of the Son here, and he is a distinct person from the Father and the Holy Spirit. It doesn't say he had two natures before the incarnation. He took on his second nature (man) when he was born. Then he had two natures, God and Man. Before that he had only one nature: God.

I never said there were three natures. Only the Word is said to be "with God." So "with God" is to be God? Honestly is that how you read it? It says "with God" and the text emphasizes this (v.2). Now understand, I am not disputing that the Word has and always had a divine nature that He "was God" and as such was the Creator.

Creation is an act. Acts are temporal in nature. That which is eternal never changes. Truth is immutability. God being the source of all truth.

The actual point of John 1:1 has to do with the first words: In the beginning. Just like Genesis 1:1. John is making the point that the son was not created but was always there and is God.

I agree.

[Sparko]

wow.

[Pentecost]

I don't really doubt his salvation (that's mostly for Jesus to know, and for me to find out I suppose), there are people who hold far more heretical views that I would imagine are probably saved, but looking at his other threads this strange bit of doctrine he's invented has lead him into holding some peculiar views, and while he may not be a heretic, I can certainly imagine a slippery slope for others that may hold a similar Christology.

Perhaps I'm more sensitive to this issue since I, myself, came out of a cult that had an unorthodox view of the nature of Christ.

I agree his beliefs are peculiar, and I share a worry about that water slide, but he has yet to go down it, and God willing he won't, nor will he pass these odd beliefs on. Often you have a genuine heresiarch (Joseph Smith for example), but you can have an unusual but orthodox view misunderstood (doctrines on pneumatology, Trinity, Baptism, and gifts of the Spirit in the example I'm using) by some of the the adherents and we end up with unorthodox groups like the Oneness who kinda just slipped into heresy. I am not as skeptical as you might be since you came out of a heretical group, but I AM hyper aware of the false teachings that are all too often (correctly) associated with the Pentecostal/charismatic tradition so I've payed special attention to the topic so that I might know right discernment.

The problem is that it seems to put an unnecessary separation between members of the Godhead, as if one of the three persons alone was the "God of the Old Testament"

A good argument can be made for it from Scripture using John 1:18 and 5:37, then paying attention to things like Moses talking to God. Is this the only interpretation possible? Absolutely not. I would point out things like Jesus' Baptism where people obviously did hear the voice of God the Father. I do not see an meaningful seperation in the sense that it divides the Trinity into a Trideity, but instead divides the Trinity by self-identified function. But I reiterate that I hold the traditional view.


In any case if 37818 continues I will have to reevaluate defending him. It looks like he's leading up to denying that the Spirit is with God and if that's the case then either the Spirit isn't God or he's a different God. Either way the worst sort of heresy and 37818 knows it, so I doubt he'll say that. I am curious where he'll go if pressed though. He has an odd tendency to claim only Scripture as his guide and then toss in a lot of meaningless philosophy.

[JonathanL]

The problem is that it seems to put an unnecessary separation between members of the Godhead, as if one of the three persons alone was the "God of the Old Testament"

When I showed him clear passages from the NT where parallells are drawn between Jesus and divine Wisdom in the OT and intertestamental Wisdom literature (and some passages where Jesus is explicitly identified with divine Wisdom) he objected to identifying Jesus with God's Wisdom because apparently Jesus is the God of the OT, and therefore can't be the Wisdom of Himself (and also because Wisdom is described as a "she" ). When your theology leads you to deny what the Bible clearly teaches I think it's time to look over your theology.

[Christianbookworm]

When I showed him clear passages from the NT where parallells are drawn between Jesus and divine Wisdom in the OT and intertestamental Wisdom literature (and some passages where Jesus is explicitly identified with divine Wisdom) he objected to identifying Jesus with God's Wisdom because apparently Jesus is the God of the OT, and therefore can't be the Wisdom of Himself (and also because Wisdom is described as a "she" ). When your theology leads you to deny what the Bible clearly teaches I think it's time to look over your theology.

Newsflash! Spirits don't have chromosomes! Thus don't really have a gender perse...

[Bill the Cat]

When I showed him clear passages from the NT where parallells are drawn between Jesus and divine Wisdom in the OT and intertestamental Wisdom literature (and some passages where Jesus is explicitly identified with divine Wisdom) he objected to identifying Jesus with God's Wisdom because apparently Jesus is the God of the OT, and therefore can't be the Wisdom of Himself (and also because Wisdom is described as a "she" ). When your theology leads you to deny what the Bible clearly teaches I think it's time to look over your theology.

Sparko and I have been arguing against that view by the Mormons for years. Things like Jesus telling the Pharisees that their God was His Father, the temple was His Father's, and the Isaiah passage where the child is prophesied are all sufficient to dismiss the claim that Jesus SOLELY is the God of the OT to the exclusion of the Father and Spirit.

[JimL]

I believe in the immutability of God. Here I am going to argue against it.


"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." -- Genesis1:1.

This being understood to be an ex nihilo creation.

God never creating anything, then after never creating anything, this God acts and creates everything.
God went from not being the Creator to becoming the Creator. A change which negates any real claim to immutability.

• Edited by a Moderator •

[Bill the Cat]

Moderated By: Bill the Cat

Jim, please note that this thread has been moved to the theist only area. As such, you will not be given points for this post above, but further instances will.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.