John Whitley
THEO 626-B01
6/19/2016
In discussing the significance of this issue for classic theology vs. the contemporary
discussion regarding the immutability of God one must first determine a specific conditional
characteristic of God. Let’s clarify what I mean by specific regarding the immutability of God.
Let’s take the love of God for example. Can the love of God be changed by anything other than
God himself? If there is nothing on earth that can change the love of God other than God himself
then this love of God is immutable. There will only be a problem if the love of God can be
changed by anything outside of God himself. The classical view holds that the immutability of
God is to be present. Looking at God closely from the description of the Bible his characteristics
are unchanging. God can never and will never be changed by any person, place, or thing. If we
take a closer look at contemporary views we will discover that this view suggests that God can
be changed if the right conditions take place. Sort of like a perfect storm scenario where even
God bends to the forces of nature. This view does not believe that God knows everything and
even goes as far to say that God reacts to certain events. This would suggest that God has limits
and would differ greatly with the description that the Bible tells of God. Here we see what has
become known today as a more open-view of God. This essay paper will reflect that the
attributes and characteristics of God are never changing no matter what regarding the nature of
sin.
When attempting to answer the question of who I would personally agree more with
Vanhoozer or Nygren on this issue I am inclined to say that I agree with Nygren. The discussion
is centered on the love of God and how this love interacts with his fallen creation. This does not
mean that I agree with Nygren on all theological doctrines. I am asked to pick one or the other
and I chose Nygren because Vanhoozer made a statement that after mankind’s fall in the garden
good no longer remains in the nature of man according to the views of Nygren. I agree with
Nygren and I believe the Bible also agrees with Nygren’s understanding of sin and its effects on
humanity. Let’s take a look at what the Bible has to say about the good in humanity. The rich
young ruler as discussed in Luke 18:18-23 is a great place to begin. “A certain ruler asked him,
‘Good teacher what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ ‘Why do you call me good?’ Jesus
answered. ‘No one is good-except God alone.” Luke records Jesus saying that only God is good.
The Bible clearly speaks about the goodness of God vs. the sinfulness of man. Does anyone else
remind humanity of their lack of goodness? Paul teaches in the Book of Romans chapter three
verse ten that man is unrighteous. Vanhoozer seems to still hope that in some way there is still
good inside of the heart of man. The prophet Jeremiah would likely rebuke Vanhoozer’s foolish
thinking. Jeremiah 17:9, “The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can
understand it? Surely Vanhoozer is not claiming that he can understand the heart of man. God
requires perfection before he will grant eternal life. Society at times tries to make it seem like
God is okay with something other than perfection and righteousness. The Bible clearly refutes
this type of foolish thinking. Maybe Vanhoozer is looking for the proverbial loophole in the
perfect law of God. If an individual tells someone 99% truth, they have just told them 100% lie.
There are no degrees of wrong and right, bad and good, righteous and unrighteous. You have one
or the other, there is no gray area or acceptable sins. Vanhoozer goes so far as to say Nygren’s
doctrine of sin is completely unacceptable. Why? Because his doctrine cannot be corrupted? His
doctrine cannot be manipulated for personal self-gratification? The reality or weight of it all is
that sin demands the sinner be put to death. Sin is contrary to the nature of God. Jesus Christ is
the sinner’s righteous substitute. Vanhoozer even claims that Nygren’s doctrine is nothing short
of a natural disaster. Maybe the real disaster lies in the hope that humanity will ever be able to
fulfill the demands of the law on their own. This means that God would no longer be needed to
sustain and humanity can achieve their own level of righteousness. There are no cheat codes in
this video game called life.
There are several ways that Feinberg contributes to this discussion in response to
“Openness” theism and in relation to the immutability of God. Feinberg describes the God of the
Bible as unchanging. This is important to the reader because Feinberg takes an early stance
instead of dodging the initial question he tackles it head on. Feinberg believes that a more
nuanced notion of immutability is needed. Feinberg not only agrees with the definition of God’s
immutability as defined in Scripture but also believes this is an encouragement to believers.
Believers can rest assured that the promises of God will always endure. The Scriptures tell us
that at times God changes his mind but in the end his purposes will be fulfilled and completed.
“Feinberg sees a way to reconcile these very difficult issues by taking a more nuanced notion of
immutability, one that takes into account the criticisms of process and open view thinkers but
still upholds the essential points taught in Scripture and demanded by the conservative
tradition.”[CITATION Fei01 \p "p. 265" \l 1033 ]
The importance of this issue for the Gospel and Christian ministry are inseparable. The
Gospel must be understood as the best news a bad person can ever hope to get. The Gospel is the
proverbial loophole to the Law of God. God revealed his Law and commandments to reveal the
evil heart of man. Once this revelation takes place the sinner recognizes their sins and chooses to
turn and repent accepting Jesus as their Lord and savior or they totally reject him. The Gospel is
the cure for sin and this cure is a free gift. Man will never be good enough without Jesus Christ
and the Gospel would not be needed without the Law of God.
Works Cited
Feinberg, John S. No One Like HIm The Doctrine of God. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2001.
