Before any theological discussion can take place this biblical fact must stand as one of the foundational truths.
Any denial of this is a departure from the truth of scripture;
From Berkofs systematic theology;
God is Immutable
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Iconoclast, May 18, 2016.
-
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
from JP Boyce;
-
Earth Wind and Fire Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Are you looking for someone to debate that?
-
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
We should use this as a starting point and add to it with solid imput.
Once basics are established progress can be made. -
It is being argued that on the cross Jesus was separated from God's presence for 3 hours as a "spiritual death." On pg. 339 of Berkhof's Systematic Theology he clearly denounces this position based in part on the immutability of the Mediator Christ. It was, he insists, strictly and only from a judicial point of view that it can be said Christ experienced "eternal death" bearing our sins. But the Christ never experienced a separation of human/divine natures and never a separation from the Father's presence. It is, states Berkhof, impossible for Jesus to have been forsaken in this manner. Why? Because God is immutable.
So while all of us may affirm the immutability of God directly, it does seem many reject the doctrine in other areas. We don't always hold it consistently. -
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
On this quoted section there is no real debate. There might be more to learn about it for sure, but this gets the ball rolling. -
In this case, all may agree that God is immutable but even some who agree may argue that He has changed His mind, relented of something that has been established as a plan, etc. People may agree that God is sovereign yet also believe that salvation hinges on man's decision. People hold truths inconsistently sometimes. -
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
I have an online friend who caused a split of sorts in arbca because he could not give up his speculation on this kind of issue.
-
-
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
But my first example, the idea that Jesus was separated from God’s presence, is unbiblical enough to justify a split if taught as doctrine. It is beyond speculation because scripture directly and repeatedly denounces the claim. Berkhof is right that it is impossible that Jesus was separated from God on the cross. Some things are large enough to be called heresy and this is one of those things. This is more severe than Arminianism ever was.
I believe that there are some doctrines like that that are absolutely worth the fight. They are so interlinked and dependent on each other (immutability, sovereignty, omnipotence.....etc.). We guard them. -
To put it another way, Arminianism holds that salvation is entirely of God and not of man. But when the conversation turns to the will of man in salvation, their soteriology ultimately denies this belief. They hold two inconsistent doctrines (and at least one must be false).
That's how I see immutability. Everyone "believes" it in theory, but when it comes down to it some deny it in practice. -
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter