← Defenders Podcast
Defenders Podcast
Defenders: Doctrine of God: Attributes of God (Part 10): God’s Immutability and Incorporeality
Loading summary
Transcript26 lines
- [00:01]
Moderator
Welcome to Defenders, the teaching class of Dr. William Lane Craig today the Doctrine of God Part 10. For more information and resources from Dr. Craig, go to reasonablefaith.org we're wrapping up
- [00:15]
Dr. William Lane Craig
our discussion of divine immutability this morning, and I argued last time that we should not follow the path charted by ancient Greek philosophers in thinking of God as utterly immutable. God in the Hebrew Bible is not frozen into immobility like an ice statue. Rather, he is a dynamic, interactive God who acts in history and interacts with people and therefore is not absolutely changeless and immutable. So how should we understand then God's immutability in light of the scriptural passages that do affirm that God cannot change? Well, J.I. packer, I think, gives a nice summary of God's immutable attributes in his book Knowing God. Here's what Packer says. Number one, he says God's life does not change. That is to say, God exists forever and he neither matures nor regresses. So God is permanent. He is eternal, never begins to exist, never ceases to exist. And as Packer said, he neither gets better or gets worse. He neither matures nor regresses. He has a perfect permanent life. Second, God's character does not change. God's mercy, love, faithfulness, justice never change. God's moral qualities are essential to God, and although he may deal with people in different ways, they will all be consistent with his fundamental moral character, which is immutable. Thirdly, Packer says God's truth does not change. That is to say, the word of the Lord endures forever. God's revelation to us stands secure now. Obviously that revelation progresses from the old covenant into the new covenant as further truth is unfolded. But God's word is trustworthy and true and therefore can be relied upon. Fourth, God's ways do not change. Now. Again, God certainly does deal with people in different ways. He dealt with the people in the old covenant in a different way than he deals with us. There was a system of animal sacrifices and temple worship in the old Covenant that is done away with now. But I think what Packer is saying is that God in the ways he deals with people is consistent in dealing with men, that he punishes sin consistently. He bestows grace freely. And so it is not as though God is capricious or changing in the way he deals with people. His different ways will be expressions of of that deeper, consistent way of dealing with human persons punishing sin and unrighteousness and awarding or bestowing grace and forgiveness freely. Fifth, Packer says God's purposes do not change. God's plans are from eternity past with full foreknowledge of the future. Nothing catches God by surprise. He doesn't need to change his plan or or adjust with mid course corrections because his plans are set from eternity past and therefore there's simply no need to change. Indeed, change is ruled out in virtue of his full foreknowledge of the future. So God's purposes and plans are unchangeable. And finally, number six packer says God's son does not change. Hebrews 13:8 says Jesus Christ is is the same yesterday, today and forever. So I think that gives us a nice summary of the ways in which we can affirm biblically that God is immutable, but without falling into this fallacy of thinking that God is utterly and totally changeless. He can change in certain contingent ways, but he will not and cannot change in his life, his existence, his fundamental character, and in the way he deals with human persons. Any discussion then about divine immutability before we move on?
- [04:47]
Tom
Tom, I know you've been asked this before, but I can't remember your answer. I know there are some verses in the Bible that makes it sound like God learned certain things. Does that have any implications on his mutability or how does that happen?
- [05:01]
Dr. William Lane Craig
It would. If you interpret those literally, it would mean that he could learn new things. Now I think again this is going to be related to divine foreknowledge. If you think that God does have complete foreknowledge of the future and we're going to talk about that when we get to omniscience. We've only hinted at it so far, then it would be impossible for God to learn something new in the sense of learning some new fact, some new propositional fact. What he would know would be whether or not that event were happening now, or whether it's still in the future and therefore to be anticipated, or has it already occurred and is in the past. So in the sense that he knows tensed facts, it's true that God at one point knows Christopher Columbus will discover America and and then later he knows Christopher Columbus is discovering America, and then later he knows Christopher Columbus did discover America. Now would you call that learning new things? I mean, in a sense he learned something new, he learns that tensed fact. But the fundamental propositional content of those facts is the same. It's just that he either knows it will happen, it is happening, or it has happened. But it would be impossible for him to learn some new propositional fact if he is Completely omniscient and has foreknowledge of the future. So passages where, for example, God says to Abraham, I'm going to go down and see if the reports that have come to me from Sodom and Gomorrah are true. That would be an anthropomorphic element of the story. It would reflect the storyteller's art and making this an exciting story of how Abraham converses with God. And God says, I'm going to go down there and find out whether these reports are true. God doesn't need to go down to Sodom to see if this is true. He's omnipresent. Right. And he's also omniscient. So this would, I think, simply be a part of the narrative that shouldn't be pressed for theological precision. Yes.
- [07:31]
Bill
Bill, there's A quote from C.S. lewis where he said, prayer doesn't change God, it changes me. And I wonder if you could comment on light of how we might pray when we pray for others or when we pray for ourselves for healing or whatever.
- [07:46]
Brad
Why do we do that?
- [07:47]
Dr. William Lane Craig
Lewis is making the point from the quotation that you cited that prayer is good for us. Prayer is a spiritual discipline that helps us to draw near to God, to depend on him, to be more devoted to Him. But I am not persuaded that that's all that prayer does, that prayer just affects us. I think prayer affects God as well and that our prayers make a difference in what God wills and does. Now, does that mean that the purpose of prayer is to change God? The subject of this section, immutability. No, it doesn't mean that we change God's mind. God knew from eternity past that we would pray at that moment and from eternity past, he knew how he would respond to those prayers. And it may well be the case that. That if we had not prayed, God would have decided to do something different. So that the prayers really do make a difference. But they don't make that difference. By changing God's mind, he will foreknow how you will pray and will answer accordingly. Or if you say fail to pray because you're disobedient or sinful, he. He may withhold some blessing because you've refused to pray. So prayer, I think, really does make a difference, but we shouldn't think of it in terms of changing God.
- [09:15]
James
Bill, I wasn't here last week, wasn't able to be here last week, so I hope you hadn't covered this, but I have a question about the second person of the Trinity, the Son, Jesus Christ, was and is a human being. But if you read certain biblical passages, it almost seems like that the flesh was added to later on. So, I mean, can you explain that? I have a little trouble understanding that.
- [09:40]
Dr. William Lane Craig
Well, actually, Bob raised. Bob Sinebelch raised this very point last week. And what we want to say in the Incarnation, if you're an orthodox Christian, is that the Incarnation is not a matter of the second person of the Trinity giving up some of his attributes, like giving up omnipresence and becoming shrunk down to Palestine and walking around in Galilee. That's not the way we should think of it. We shouldn't think that he gave up his omnipotence and became as weak as a human being that was able to be crucified, that he gave up his omniscience and became ignorant like a human being. The orthodox doctrine of the Trinity is exactly what you said of the Incarnation rather, James, is that in addition to the divine nature he already had, he assumed or added to it an additional nature, which is a human nature. And it is that human nature that is spatially limited, ignorant, temporal, and so forth. And so these qualities are to be ascribed to the incarnate Christ with respect to which nature you're talking about. So Jesus Christ is omnipotent with respect to the divine nature. He is not omnipotent with respect to his human nature, for example.
- [11:08]
James
I understand that, but how do you add something to a substance and then say there's no change? That's what I. Oh, well, that was
- [11:17]
Dr. William Lane Craig
Bob Sinneboke's okay last week, unfortunately. And I said, I, I agreed that that does involve a change, but that is not a change that would violate any of the ways in which God is immutable. The Packer laid out his character, his fundamental attributes all remain the same. But I think there is a change in that the second person of the Trinity once did not have a human nature, and then the second person of the Trinity did have a human nature, and ever since will have. That does seem to me to be a change, but it's the sort of change that one can allow without compromising God's perfection. Any other discussion?
- [11:59]
Steve
Okay, Steve, so to sort of rephrase what you just said, it's like the first person of the Trinity never changed, but the second person changes. And so he has two natures. And in an earlier question, God allows us to pray also to get back into the role originally assigned Adam of caring for others. And so you know how we can bow our knees and you can affect others to heal the land and praying for others. We're doing, like bowing the knee to Christ in submission. And so he's changing things differently. And so you would say Christ shows us how, if we take the new covering, we can have fellowship with the divine nature and be a partaker of it. And so that's how Christ, he humbled himself to learn obedience, as you said a long time ago. And yet he already knew who Barthardemu was before he met him. Yes, and so he has both natures, but he's showing us all the powers available to us. Just the same power that raised him is going to raise us. And all the power in God is available to us as we kneel before Christ and let him be Lord.
- [13:14]
Dr. William Lane Craig
Okay, good. All right. Well, to sum up then, midway through our study of the divine attributes, we've been looking at God's attributes in virtue of his infinite being. And we've seen that God is self existent, necessary, eternal, omnipresent, and immutable. If we want to meditate on something that will expand our minds, think on God. To return to Charles Spurgeon's words with which we began, the highest science, the loftiest speculation, the mightiest philosophy which can ever engage the attention of a child of God is the name, the nature, the person, the work, the doings, and the existence of the great God whom he calls His Father. God is an infinite being that stretches our mind beyond its mundane limits. But now we want to turn to talk about God's attributes, which he has in virtue of being a personal being. You remember I said that the God of the Bible is both infinite and yet also personal. And we've been looking at some of the ways in which God is infinite. And in these respects, there's a great chasm between God and the rest of creation, including man and the animals and plants and inorganic material. But now when we come to talking about God as personal, we find man as made in the image of God, as being on God's side of the chasm. And then the rest of creation is separated from God and man in that the remaining creatures in the world are not persons in the way that God and man are. Now, many people that I've talked to don't have trouble conceiving of God as an infinite being. That seems intuitively correct. But many people have trouble thinking that God can be both infinite and personal. They seem to think that somehow personhood excludes infinity, that God cannot be personal if he's also infinite. And it seems to me that that's simply an unjustified assumption. God possesses all of the attributes of personhood that we do, whether these are intellectual attributes, emotional attributes, volitional attributes, but he possesses them to an infinite degree, whereas we have them only to a finite degree. And so in that sense, these attributes are communicable. They can be shared by both God and man to different degrees. And thus man is a person fundamentally because God is personal, it's because of who God is that we are also persons. So let's take a look at the first of the attributes then, of God that we want to speak of in terms of his personhood. And the first one is God's incorporeality. God's incorporeality. And let's look at some scriptural data pertinent to this attribute. First, John chapter 4 and verse 24 John 4:24. Jesus says God is Spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and in truth. So God is a spiritual being. He's not a physical being. He is a being which is spirit. Second point that I want to make is to point out once again, or remind ourselves that God is omnipresent. And here we don't need to look at these verses again, but just refer back to what we've already said. God is not spatially located in the way that a physical object is. Rather, God is omnipresent. And that will entail, I think, his incorporeality. Thirdly, God is indiscernible to the five senses. He cannot be perceived by the five senses. First Timothy, chapter six and verse sixteen. First Timothy, chapter six and verse sixteen. Speaking of Jesus Christ, Lord of Lords, who alone has immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has ever seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen. Here God is said to be invisible. He cannot be seen and never has been seen. Also 1 Timothy 1:17, First Timothy 1:17 says, to the King of the ages, immortal, invisible, the only God be power and glory forever and ever. Amen. So God is said by the Scriptures to be invisible. And I think that would encompass not merely eyesight, but also being able to feel God or smell God, or use any of the other five senses to apprehend God. God is not a physical object that is discernible by the five senses. Fourthly, the Old Testament forbids making images of God. Exodus chapter 20, verses 4 and 5A. Exodus chapter 24 and 5A says, you shall not make for yourself a graven image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth, you shall not bow down to them and serve them. So here it is prohibited to make images of God that would be used in worship. And then look at Deuteronomy 4:15b to 16. Deuteronomy 4:15b To 16. Since you saw no form on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire. And beware, lest you act corruptly by making a graven image for yourselves in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female. So God is not to be portrayed in paintings, in statuary, in any sort of visual image, any sort of image, however beautiful, however artistically inspiring, will diminish who God is by portraying him in some necessarily finite, limited, corporeal way. And so God is not to be pictured in any sort of way according to the Scriptures at the same time. Nevertheless, it is true that the Bible will often describe God in bodily terms. Psalm 18:6, 10 gives us an example. Psalm chapter 18, verses 6 to 10. In my distress I called upon the Lord to my God. I cried for help from his temple. He heard my voice, and my cry to him reached his ears. And then the earth reeled and rocked. The foundations also of the mountains trembled and quaked because he was angry. Smoke went up from his nostrils, and devouring fire from his mouth, glowing coals flamed forth from him. He bowed down the heavens and came down. Thick darkness was under his feet. He rode on a cherub and flew. He came swiftly on the wings of the wind. Now here God is described by the psalmist in very graphic bodily terms. He has ears, he has nostrils. He's like a fire breathing monster who rides the heavens, rides on the cherubs through the clouds. So at the same time that Israel is commanded not to make images of God, yet you have these very physicalistic descriptions of God in the Psalms, and we might well wonder what's going on here. Moreover, there are, and this is the next point, there are in the Old Testament and throughout the Scriptures, visions of God described, so called theophanies, where people see God. And these are often in bodily terms. For example, Exodus chapter 33, verses 20 to 23, Exodus chapter 33 and verses 20 to 23. Here Moses is asking to see the glory of God. And God says to him in verse 20 that he will show Moses his glory. But he said, you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live. And the Lord said, behold, there is a place by me where you shall stand upon the rock. And while my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft of the rock and will cover you with my hand until I have passed by. Then I will take away my hand and you will see my back, but my face shall not be seen. Now, here God describes himself as having a face and hands and even a back that Moses can look at. God is described in very human terms here as having a sort of a body that Moses is allowed to glimpse, but Moses cannot see God's face. So what are we to make of this scriptural data? On the one hand, we have the clear prohibitions against any kind of images of God, and also the affirmation that God is omnipresent, that he is spirit, not of the order of material or physical things. And yet we also have these descriptions of God in very graphic bodily terms and these theophanies, these visions of God in terms of bodily images. So before we delve into that, let me ask if there's any discussion of the scriptural material that we've read so far.
- [25:00]
Brad
Yeah, very related to your discussion of the tension between not having an idol of God and also these images being described in the Bible. I wonder what your thoughts are in terms of where our limits should be in terms of describing God. For, for example, like CS Lewis had him in the image of a lion in the lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, which was very effective, showing some characteristics of him. But what would maybe be the difference between that and having an idol?
- [25:29]
Dr. William Lane Craig
Yeah, now there you're talking about a literary figure that is a Christ symbol, a Christ figure. And I think that's different, at least in my opinion. I think you could have people in literature that are Christ figures in the story, but you're not violating the commandment to make images of God and portray what he is like. For example, if you've ever read Charles Dickens wonderful novel the Tale of Two Cities, the hero in that novel, I think is clearly a Christ figure because what he does is he dies in the place of the condemned prisoner. He allows the condemned prisoner to escape, and he goes to the guillotine and sacrifices his life. He's a Christ figure. I think in the movie Avatar, the hero is his name Jake, I forget exactly, is a Christ figure. He. He becomes incarnate as a Nephi on this planet, and he becomes the savior of that race. He's a Christ figure. And I don't see anything wrong with that because it's not meant to be a literal sort of portrayal of what God is like. These are literary symbols, as it were.
- [26:51]
Brad
Yeah, I agree. And I wonder if it would be correct to say that what God wants for us is not to create a portrayal of Him. That seems to be all encapsulating that we actually direct our worship to.
- [27:05]
Dr. William Lane Craig
That's certainly true. These prohibitions against graven images are, with respect to worship in particular, that you shouldn't have in your church images of God which are used in worship in any way. Yes. Brad and Aslan, whom you mentioned, is of course a Christ figure, isn't he? He also dies for the sake of the people, to save them. Yes. So is there any distinction between God the Father and Jesus in his corporeal sense? Okay, I'm inclined to think there is, Brad, because when we portray Jesus in a painting or in a movie, a film, we are not portraying his divine nature, but his human nature. And that was fully. Or let me correct that. That was truly and unequivocally human. And so it seems to me that there's nothing the matter with images of Jesus.
- [28:12]
Moderator
But the Sistine Chapel is not a place you should.
- [28:15]
Dr. William Lane Craig
No. There you've got Adam with God the Father creating Adam. And God looks like a bodybuilder extending his finger out to Adam. And I think that as wonderful as Michelangelo's paintings are, that these are a violation of these commandments against images of God.
- [28:37]
Kevin
Thanks, Bill. We talked about not being able to see God, and you also mentioned that you didn't think our other senses could. Could understand him either. But I see a few different places in scripture where it does seem like man can audibly hear God's voice. Like Moses at the burning bush, the calling of Samuel into service as a young boy at Jesus baptism, and the calling of Paul on the road to Damascus, for example.
- [29:03]
Dr. William Lane Craig
Yes.
- [29:03]
Kevin
Now, I guess my question is, do you think that those were their spirits hearing him directly through the spirit, or is that a true audible that they
- [29:12]
Dr. William Lane Craig
heard with their ears? It seems to me it's undeniable. Those were genuine auditory experiences that these people had. They heard the voice. But I guess the way I would see that, Kevin, is that it's not as though you actually hear God's voice because God doesn't have any vocal cords. I would say he doesn't have a voice. He doesn't push air out through a larynx and. And produces sound. Rather, what God can do is cause sound waves in the air that are then an audible voice that communicates his message to you. And I think that's very, very different. What you're hearing then Are these sound waves miraculously produced by an incorporeal God who doesn't himself have vocal mechanisms to have a voice? Thanks. It would be similar to the theophanies, I think, where you. Well, I'm getting ahead of myself. But you have this visual experience of a being on a throne or the back of God in Moses case. And I would see these as something that God causes, but you're not actually seeing him. But as I say, I'm getting ahead of myself. Let's go over to Bruce here and Jim, did you have a comment too? Okay, I think we'll have time for both.
- [30:40]
Jim
We'd have to treat Jesus as differently, as different in terms of this physical manifestation. Because if that weren't true, then anybody who saw Jesus and lived with him would die. You know, he walked the earth and.
- [30:54]
Dr. William Lane Craig
Yes. Or it falls into the error called docetism, which is an early heresy that said that Jesus didn't really have a physical human nature, but that it was just illusory. And that's a heresy. So we don't want to say that we've got to affirm the physicality and corporeality of Jesus human nature. Let's take Jim's comment and then we'll bring it to a close. Can you tell us a definition of how you're using the word incorporeality? Yes, and I'll get into this more next week or next time. But it's the idea that God doesn't have a body, so he doesn't have a corpus. So incorporeality would mean God doesn't have a body. He is pure spirit. You, I think, according to the Bible, are a composite of body and soul. But if your body were to die and be laid in the ground, your soul then would become a disembodied spiritual substance. And that's what God is. He's an unembodied spiritual substance. He's incorporeal. And you would be incorporeal too, once your body died. But you would be not unembodied. You'd be disembodied at that point. But again, I'm getting ahead of myself. These are the issues that we'll get into next time when we try to make sense and of this biblical data. Let me close by inviting us to bow our heads and I will read a benediction from Philippians. The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen.
- [32:41]
Moderator
The copyright for the content of this recording is held by Dr. William Lane Craig. For more, go to reasonablefaith.org.