A God Who Changes

Why we need Divine Simplicity Pt. 3

Introduction

It seems impossible for the one who denies Divine Simplicity to maintain that God is also immutable (unchanging). Simplicity and immutability are so intertwined that the whole ball of yarn begins to unravel when one pulls on one or the other.

To affirm God’s immutability is to establish that there are no potentialities in God. His character has never changed, nor will it. God is pure “being.” The word “becoming” must never be applied to Him.

What is at Stake

Referring to the name I AM, Stephen Charnock points out that this name “doth not only ascribe immutability to God, but exclude everything else from partaking in that perfection. All things else are tottering; God sees all other things in continual motion under his feet, like water passing away and no more seen, while he remains fixed and immoveable.”¹

Luis Berkhof adds clarity when he writes, “The Immutability of God is a necessary concomitant of His aseity. It is that perfection of God by which He is devoid of all change, not only in His Being, but also in His perfections, and in His purposes and promises.”² Losing this is what is at stake when denying simplicity.

Simplicity and (therefore) Immutability

God’s one simple essence necessitates that God is unchanging. If God is simple, God cannot change because change implies a division in God’s perfections, purposes, and promises.

To extrapolate this, think about what is true of things that are made up of parts. Dr. Sam Renihan helpfully conceptualizes this.

Consider first, all things composed are caused. Theoretically, if God were composite, this implies the existence of something prior that gave rise to His being. Renihan writes,

“All things composed have a cause that unites, or united, the composed parts, parts which, under other circumstances, would be independent or separate. Every composed thing has a composer. Every composition has a compositor. Therefore, all things composed are caused.”³

Second, all things composed exist successively. Like anything that is composed, it is subject to a process of being put together, which implies a succession of moments or time. But this would attack God’s aseity and eternality: “God’s aseity and eternity depend upon simplicity because all things composed, exist by virtue of a process of composition.”⁴ God transcends time and cannot be bound by a succession of moments.

Third, all things composed are imperfect. If God were composite, this implies He could be reduced to more fundamental parts that gave rise to the whole—a whole is normatively superior to its parts. Renihan continues,

…the thing composed, being composed of parts, can be decomposed and reduced to its more basic parts. So, while the process of composition may eliminate imperfections, it cannot perfect absolutely, and because all things composed have the potency or potentiality to be reduced to more basic parts, they are, therefore, imperfect. Perfection requires purity.”

Therefore, all things composed are mutable. Anything that can be caused, is not eternal, lacks perfect purity, and possesses either potency that must be actualized or potentiality that can be reduced to more basic parts, is mutable and subject to change. Simplicity guards immutability.

Implications of a Changing God

The Scriptures are clear on this. God tells the people of Israel, “I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed” (Mal. 3:6). The Apostle James reminds the church that God is the Father of lights, “with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change” (Jam. 1:17). The implications of a mutable god are numerous.

First, for someone to change, they are either getting better or worse. God has always been and always will be all that He possesses. But if He somehow changes for the better, it means that He was worse before and, therefore, was not God. If He changes for the worse, He ceases to be perfect and, therefore, ceases to be God.

Second, if God can change His purposes for humanity and the state of affairs therein, then this denies God’s infinite and exhaustive knowledge of all things (Num. 23:19; Is. 46:10; Rom. 11:33-36).

Problem Passages?

Problems arise for many in the texts that indicate that God “repents” or “regrets”—Texts such as 1 Samuel 15:10 and Genesis 6:6. Later in the same chapter of 1 Samuel, a seemingly contradictory statement is seen, “And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for he is not a man, that he should have regret” (1 Sam. 15:29). How should one engage these texts?

Understanding the language biblical authors employ helps us grasp the sense in which we can say, “God regrets.” God uses language to condescend to our thinking and brings us close to Himself so that the reader may catch a glimpse of His incomprehensible wisdom. The authors of Scripture often write using anthropomorphisms, which attribute physical human features to God, but here, the writers use what is known as an anthropopathism. In other words, since God cannot be overwhelmed by emotion or suffer regret, this is language that attributes human emotions to God.

For God to regret would imply change, which implies a division of the divine mind and will and, therefore, a denial of simplicity. We must put these two verses—1 Samuel 15:10 and 15:29—side-by-side. In the first case, God’s regret is meant to teach us His intense disapproval of sin and the grief that is in His heart toward the effects of sin. In one sense, it is real grief, but the second text must be factored in to show a God who is not like a man who regrets; all creatureliness must be denied when speaking of God’s perfections.

John Calvin comments on this text, “the term change is used figuratively… In these words, his immutability is plainly asserted without figure. Wherefore it is certain that, in administering human affairs, the ordination of God is perpetual and superior to everything like repentance.” Thus, God’s purposes, promises, and perfections are fixed and immovable.

As Micheal Horton points out, it is God’s revealed plans that change, but never His hidden decree or secret plans. He writes, “It is not with respect to God’s being, character, or hidden decrees but with respect to the history in which these decrees are executed that we encounter instances of reversals in God’s revealed plan.”⁵

Conclusion

As others have helpfully noted, many get bent out of shape regarding God’s immutability or simplicity simply because their theology suffers from ontological univocism. In other words, they look at the Bible's figurative or analogical language and seek to make a one-to-one correlation between God and man. They almost equate statements such as “Joe is wise” and “God is wise” as if they mean the same thing, as if (though it is normally not said this way) Joe is wise in the exact same sense that God is wise.

So opponents of simplicity (even evangelicals) often cannot conceive of a God who doesn’t have parts like we do. We desire a God of our own imagination—one reduced to a manageable size—giving mere lip service to the Creator/creature distinction, the neglect of which is nothing short of idolatry.

If God is divided into parts, there is reason to believe that His mind, His will, and His perfections can be divided and, therefore, subject Him to changes that arise from conflicting wills. If this is true, God’s people no longer have good reason to trust in Him in a world that changes on a moment-by-moment basis.

But because the God of the Bible never changes, we have every reason to relinquish any glory-belittling thoughts which arise from unbelief and rest on Him as our rock.

In my next and final post, I hope to show how the oneness of God’s being reaches its climax and is displayed brightly in the cross of Christ.

1. Charnock, S. The Complete Works of Stephen Charnock (Vol. 1), Edinburgh; London; Dublin: James Nichol; James Nisbet and Co.; W. Robertson; G. Herbert. p. 380

2. Berkhof, L. Systematic theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing co. 1938 p. 58

3. Renihan, Samuel D., Deity & Decree, Broken Wharfe, UK, 2020. p. 27

4. Ibid. 28

5. Horton, Michael. The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way. Zondervan, 2011. p. 229