This week I continue my treatise on Why Chrisitianity is REAL, in response to an article at Atheists Alliance International by Bill Flavell’s article, entitled “Eight Reasons Christianity is False”
Atheist Bill’s fourth reason against Christianity:
“4. There is clear evidence that Christianity has evolved as human understanding of the world has changed whilst a real, God-given religion, should never need to change.”
The default assumptions here:
-
-
- Man’s understanding of God has evolved as the world has changed.
- God’s religion for man should never need to change.
-
Yes Virginia, the world has changed…
Man’s understanding of practically EVERYTHING evolves with each successive generation. Consider something as ‘simple” as a computer tablet. Many folks take tablet use for granted, and may even use multiple tablets every day. If we were to magically transport one back in time in multiples of 60 years, every generation that sees it would have a different understanding. At some point, the device would be beyond understanding People would have no idea how it works, or why it works the way it does. This understanding has to do with the science and data available at the time. A tablet magically transported back in time has not changed; the only change is in the people’s understanding. An evolving perspective from humankind is not limited by God. Our understanding of the world is limited only by our own information and biases.
God’s religion for man should never need to change
In my previous article, I made the point that “there are situations where the ‘influence of God’ on our children is not always seen as favorable — but it is our RESPONSE as children that determines the impact of the influence… When a child lives through the influence of something in their culture, they develop a response to it. For those that accept God’s influence, they are made stronger. It is always mankind that responds to change – by coming to a deeper understanding of God (or not).
Theology has indeed evolved over time. In effect, our reaction to God and his ways are based on our current understanding. It is always the case that Mankind is responding to a change in what is known about God. God himself remains immutable.. I draw my apology for God’s immutability from Credo Magazine, which had a whole series on immutability in one issue. The proofs of God’s immutability which I summarize here are:
1. Divine Immutability (by Josh Malone) His intro has some heavy dialogue, but I like how he points out how scripture is a strong witness, and he explains how God does not change. “Classic theology has confessed the doctrine of divine immutability in contemplation of the scriptural witness to the perfectly simple triune God who is life. These twin doctrinal affirmations, simplicity and aseity, speak of the utter indivisibility (Deut. 6:4) and constancy (1 Thess. 5:24) of our God who is the inexhaustible ground (Rom. 11:36) and wellspring of life (Ps. 36:9) in and of himself. The doctrine of divine immutability is interwoven with these perfections, affirming that God is– as uncreated being, but he does not change– as with created becoming.”
2. God’s immutability ties to our Doctrines and our Christian Life (by Peter Sanlon) In Peter’s essay, he explains that God’s immutability is deeply connected to Christian belief. Christians believe that God’s promises are true and unchanging, and, the Holy Scriptures presented in the Old and New Testament are unchanging. Indeed, if God changes, then the promises He gives us would be suspect, and likely to not be trustworthy. “… links between immutability, promises, and the Christian life are basic, but far from superficial. Probing the relevant doctrinal connections yields valuable insights about the nature of God and how we live in Him.”
3. Does God change when He Creates? (by Richard C Barcellos) In Richard’s essay, “… creation assumes God exists, then his existence is fundamental to creation and necessary to it. Without God there is no creation. Theology proper, therefore, is of first importance and fundamental. Since this is the case, we will consider God the Creator, creation ex nihilo, then whether God changes, in any sense, by virtue of creation.” Richard further explains that “If one posits change in God due to creation or anything else, one denies divine simplicity, infinity, eternity, immutability, and impassibility, no matter how loudly he attempts to affirm either or both.”
This actually supports Bill’s argument that God does not need to change. As Richard points out, Christianity recognizes that the act of creation strongly affirms that God did not change.
4. Does God experience emotional change? (by Samuel Renihan) Besides the truth of an unchanging creator and an unchanged list of doctrines, we also have the truth that God does not change emotionally (If God changed emotionally, that would mean — God changes!) In popular songs and in the way people read scripture, some may say that God seems to react (and change) according to circumstances. Samuel summarizes this theology into 4 points:
-
- The Bible describes God in the language of human experience and emotion, but denies that those experiences are in a part of God.
- The Bible describes God in a way that makes it impossible for him to undergo anything or be acted upon.
- We must not equate the human language used to describe God with God himself.
- We need to distinguish between our eternal God in himself, and the outworking of his decree in time and space.
As Samuel mentions in his article there is a popular snickers commercial which suggests we are not ourselves when we are ‘hangry’ (hungry and angry). God is not man, and does not NEED to change. If he was fickle and emotionally sensitive, it is possible we would not exist. It would be so simple for a creator to ‘click his fingers’, and start over.
5. God cannot deny himself (By Steven J. Duby) Steven’s objective in this essay is to “consider how a more traditional understanding of God’s immutability might be illumined and reinforced by the doctrine of divine simplicity. While setting forth the relationship between immutability and simplicity will not allay the concerns of all critics, it can shed light on why a stronger doctrine of God’s immutability, like that of Augustine, Aquinas, or Calvin, remains important today.” The Westminster confession says that ‘God is said to be “without body, parts or passions.” ‘ God is not composed of separate parts, such as ‘love’, ‘justice’, etc. “God’s attributes (wisdom, justice, goodness, and so forth) are not qualities added to his essence, but rather are just aspects or descriptions of his rich essence. To be God simply is to be wise, just, good.” This is an important argument, because an increment in an attribute, such as ‘more love’ or ‘more justice’ would mean that God changes. To know that God simply IS, and does not have parts, actually provides a strong argument for the absence of change in God. At the core of Steven’s premise, something that is primary will never be binary (yes or no).
