Concerning The Nature Of God

I guess we need to agree to a definition of "change". Here are the common definitions:
1. To make or become different
2. Make or become a different substance entirely

Or, it can be : we need to agree in a definition of "not change"..

I remember an Atheist dropped by here: he said that: "never change" is literally the same as "cannot change"....

I said no, literally they are different: "never change" implies faithfulness, being true to a promise....
 
I guess we need to agree to a definition of "change". Here are the common definitions:
1. To make or become different
2. Make or become a different substance entirely

Now, in regard to the first one: to become different. This is when the qualities of object go from one way to the next. For example, we say "the traffic light changed from red to green". Now, the traffic light is still a traffic light, but it has gone through a transformation in which its qualities and its purpose are now different. Perhaps more closely related to our discussion would be when the demeanor or personality of a person is altered. A person who was at one time a happy, outgoing person returns after some time and is now a depressed, angry cynic. We say to that person "you've changed". The person is still himself, but with drastically different qualities. This is the type of change that occurred between the OT and NT in God and the relationship between Him and Man. He is still considered the same "God" yet each have clear and distinct qualities. One is of order and justice, while the other is of love and mercy. Now, even if God stresses a particular quality at one time or another, this fluctuation in trait is still a shift.

Definition two implies that the very object becomes an entirely different object. A proper illustration is the growth of a seed into a plant. We no longer call a flower a seed, even though we know its history. A less accurate, but still sufficient example is the transformation of a caterpillar into a butterfly. Considering that God is without physical form, and can only be judged by His qualities, we have to admit that this change did in fact take place. Although it has been argued, there is little evidence of consistency between OT and NT. There is no cherubim guarding the gates, there isn't any fire and sulfur raining from the heavens, there are no tests to kill a loved one. In fact it is the exact opposite. Therefore, if God is measured by His qualities, and His qualities certainly did see a change, then the only conclusion under this definition of change is that God has changed form.

Since God can not, and does not change, as he is the same yesterday, today and forever then the change that comes is to man him self. In the Old Testament God was only known through His Word given through the Prophets. In the New Testament God goes from being known externally to actually living inside man which changes him. There is a huge difference between God being outside you to living in you! God does have a nature, and it is within that nature he has attributes that maybe you are referring to. But that does not mean he changes at all. His attributes are clearly seen through scripture and it is God's will that we partake of His divine nature.

2Pe 1:4 by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire.
 
Let me ask you this then... You say that the law of the crucifixion supersedes the law of perfection, as the law of aerodynamics supersedes the law of gravity. This is correct. However, there was a time when we didn't know about aerodynamics. We thought it impossible that we could fly. Did the people of the old testament know that the future generations' relationship with God was going to be drastically changed through the crucifixion? Sure, there were prophecies of the Messiah, but no specifics were outlined. If something like this could take place, what's to say that we're just not aware of another change to come? What if our generations are like those between the OT and the NT? You could use the End Times argument as the next "era", but remember: the Messiah was predicted. They knew he was coming. What they got, however, was drastically different than what they expected. What this means is that you can't be so confidant in the consistency of these beliefs.
This is what I've been saying for years. Prophecy is not of a private interpretation so when people hold onto dogmatic teachings of the events of the end times, they're liable to miss the actual prophecy - just like those who followed Christ until He spoke on eating His flesh and drinking His blood, ironically John 6:66! They thought of Him as an occultist wanting to performs some bizarre ritualistic sacrifice or something. Study the sure mercies of David. He understood what the law really was and he understood that God's grace was more powerful than the law (Psa 32:1). David above all should have been killed for his sins and he knew that, yet God's grace prevailed. The Law kills, just as Paul says, but the Spirit (even before the actual Crucifixion) gives life (2 Cor 3:6)!
 
Top