The Doctrine of God
Order Instructions:
This essay is to be no less than 1000 words and prepared in Turabian format (including footnotes).
In our reading the concept of God’s love emerges several times (a) in connection with Plato, (b) Augustine’s understanding of the essential nature of God in the Trinitarian relation, (c) the relation of God toward creation, and (d) especially as an attribute directed toward sinful humanity. Van hooper attempts thread the needle between Plato and Nygren on the matter of God’s love toward fallen creation (c and d, above).
1. Discuss the significance of this issue for classic theology vs. the contemporary discussion regarding the immutability of God.
2. Would you agree more with Vanhoozer or Nygren on this issue? Why?
3. In what way(s) does Feinberg contribute to this discussion in response to “Openness” theism and in relation to the immutability of God? Explain the importance of this issue for the gospel and Christian ministry.
SAMPLE ANSWER
The Doctrine of God
Understanding the nature and the Love God has to humanity is something that has elicited mixed reactions from various scholars. People hold contrary views about God’s love. For instance, people such as Plato, Augustine and Van hooper among many others have different perspectives and insights concerning the love of God and whether indeed God changes. The author therefore deliberates on the significance of the issue concerning immutability of God from the perspective of classic theology and contemporary and provides own view on the stance of Vahnoozer or Nygren on the issue. Contribution of Feinberg on the aspect of openness theism in relation to immutability of God is as well discussed.
Immutability of God (whether God changes or not) from classic theology and contemporary theology is important as it provides an opportunity to have a deeper understanding of God’s love. The views of classic theology on immutability of God differ from that held by the contemporary theology on various instances. The Bible talks about God’s love in a number of verses. For instance, in 1 John 4:7-8 the Bible says ‘”Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love”[1]. This verse clearly shows that God Himself is love and therefore people must replicate this love.
However, classic theology, which has been greatly influenced by Platonic philosophy, holds the view that God or gods does not need anything from the human beings therefore cannot love[2]. The argument is that if God is perfect it means that He is not able to change since change means that He could be imperfect. Therefore, this classical view about God’s love is not supported by the Holy bible believed to be inspired by the Holy Spirit hence, Gods word. On contrary, contemporary theology uses the Bible as a reference to ascertain and prove of God’s love. Because love needs reciprocity between two people it means that God is not immutable meaning that God changes. A number of verses shows this such as (Genesis 18:16-32, Exodus 32:14)[3]. This perspective furthermore, provides a number of lessons. First is that the schools of thought indicates that God is the creator of all the things in the world and He has control over everything. He is therefore able to change in some times when people do not walk and do the way He has commanded and Wishes. It is the love of God that actually contributed to the sending of Christ, His only Son to save man from sin. Therefore, this is enough evidence about the love of God and that God can change.
I do concur with Van hooper perspective when it comes to the relation of God towards creation and when it comes to attribute directed towards the sinful humanity. God is a loving God, he sometimes changes, and this does not mean that God is imperfect. From the scripture that Van Hooper relies on to argue his point, it is important that God extend his love by forgiving the fallen humanities. Human beings that had defied the commands of God were saved from their sins. God love therefore, is surmountable. God forgives humanity their sins by sending His son to die for the sake of our sins[4]. This is a sign of love. Furthermore, in the Old Testament God is able to spare Sodom and Gomorra from destruction by promising Abraham that he will not destroy the city if he found anyone righteous. In Exodus 32:14 God repents for the evils he thought to have done to people. Therefore, I agree with Vanhoozer that indeed God is a loving God and He changes.
John Feinbeg as well contributes to this discussion. His response to open theists whose version is of (incomplete God who is neither all knowing, all-powerful nor eternal beyond time), he believes that this is unscriptural. In relation to immutability of God, Feinberg believes that there are other things such as His inherent attributes and God Moral character that cannot change while some other things such as His Relationships to people and His emotions can change[5]. Therefore, the views of Feinber reconciles that passages or the views of changing and unchanging aspects of God but rather is weakened when God is viewed or placed as inhabitant of time[6]. This issue is therefore important for gospel and Christianity ministry. The church leaders and ministers must be able to understand this to know where they are heading. For the classic theist God is far and is uncaring hence does not qualify to be God. For the open theists, God seems confused and is not near God and projected in the Bible. The best way for Christian to live is to believe in the word of God as written in the bible. God is unchanging but will change in response to the activity of human beings as manifested through various instances in the bible. He is sovereign God and has given man freewill hence; people are responsible for whatever things they do.
Bibliography
Dolezal, James. ‘Trinity, Simplicity and the Status of God’s Personal Relations’. International Journal of Systematic Theology, 16(1), 79-98.
Duby, Steven. ‘Classical Christian Theism and the Criterion of Particularity’. International Journal of Systematic Theology, 15(2), 196-215.
King James version. Bible
Learn theology.com. The Openness Of God: A Critical Assessment, 2014). Retrieved from: http://learntheology.com/the-openness-of-god-a-critical-assessment.html
Mdharrismd. Com. The Love and Immutability of God”. 2012. Retrieved from: http://mdharrismd.com/2012/04/20/the-love-and-immutability-of-god/
[1] King James version. Bible
[2] Steven, Duby. ‘Classical Christian Theism and the Criterion of Particularity’. International Journal of Systematic Theology, 15(2), 196-215.
[3] King James version. Bible
[4] Learn theology.com. The Openness Of God: A Critical Assessment, 2014). Retrieved from: http://learntheology.com/the-openness-of-god-a-critical-assessment.html
[5] Mdharrismd. Com. The Love and Immutability of God” Retrieved from: http://mdharrismd.com/2012/04/20/the-love-and-immutability-of-god/
[6] James, Dolezal. ‘Trinity, Simplicity and the Status of God’s Personal Relations’. International Journal of Systematic Theology, 16(1), 79-98.
We can write this or a similar paper for you! Simply fill the order form!
