Yes, God does not change (though we might not be able to fully comprehend what this means as finite beings). Only the Son has two natures, divine and human (hypostatic union). God did not change, He simply took on an additional nature without disposing of the first (divine) one. Again, we may not be able to fully understand what this means as finite beings.Our God is eternal and unchanging. Does that also mean that God for all eternity , our God ,father son and holy spirit has two natures, divine and human? The human nature coming from JEsus? Or did GOd change 2,000 years ago with the incarnation of Jesus?
Isn’t “(taking) on an additional nature” a form of change?Yes, God does not change (though we might not be able to fully comprehend what this means as finite beings). Only the Son has two natures, divine and human (hypostatic union). God did not change, He simply took on an additional nature without disposing of the first (divine) one. Again, we may not be able to fully understand what this means as finite beings.
It would seem so.Isn’t “(taking) on an additional nature” a form of change?
All we know is that God’s nature is eternal and unchanging (and so, yes, the Son is always God, just as the other Persons are). Further, Christians have mostly decided on what the hypostatic union is not rather than what it is. Some examples that were ruled out long ago and the year in which they were first declared heretical:Isn’t “(taking) on an additional nature” a form of change?
I think, however, that change in both Christianity and Judaism suggests imperfection and possibly decay. Further, the living G-d of these religions is unlike any other living being.I believe I’ve read that the god of Judaism and Christianity is a living god. I also believe I’ve read that these religions are living religions. It makes sense to me that that which is living changes. Actually that which is dead changes as well through decay. I guess I’m espousing that everything changes.
Thank you for the information. I take it that the groups which espoused these heresies were not guided by the Holy Spirit, as opposed to the Church, according to Catholic teaching.All we know is that God’s nature is eternal and unchanging (and so, yes, the Son is always God, just as the other Persons are). Further, Christians have mostly decided on what the hypostatic union is not rather than what it is. Some examples that were ruled out long ago and the year in which they were first declared heretical:
Apollinarism (381): Divine + Human = Human mind only, everything else divine
Nestorianism (451): Divine + Human = Two persons in Christ
Monophysitism (Eutychianism) (451): Divine + Human = New nature
Monothelitism (681): Divine + Human = Two natures, one divine-human will
The position adopted at the Council of Chalcedon is known as duophysitism or Chalcedonianism, and it is held by Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestants and most Mormons hold to a form of it.
We tend to apply Newton’s law that every action has an equal but opposite reaction to everything in our experience. That isn’t true in the case of God. His actions don’t have any return effect on Him. All relationships between God and creature chance only insofar as the creature changes. God himself is not moved.Isn’t “(taking) on an additional nature” a form of change?
No, God is not unchanging, at least not in the usual sense. If God were unchanging, then the Bible would not be very interesting:Our God is eternal and unchanging. Does that also mean that God for all eternity , our God ,father son and holy spirit has two natures, divine and human? The human nature coming from JEsus? Or did GOd change 2,000 years ago with the incarnation of Jesus?
However, it is thought that G-d exists outside of time and space even though we measure our own lives based on time. That is, the actions that G-d takes can be viewed sub specie aeternitatis rather than according to a linear perspective of time.No, God is not unchanging, at least not in the usual sense. If God were unchanging, then the Bible would not be very interesting:
On the first day God said, “Let there be light.” And on the second day God said, “Let there be light.” And on the third day God said, “Let there be light.” And on the fourth day…
An unchanging God cannot change, which greatly restricts the actions an unchanging God can take: “I’m sorry Moses, I cannot part the sea for you today because I didn’t part it yesterday and I am unchanging.”
rossum
Indeed. And the word “change” is a human word based inside time. Change is difference over time. If God is unchanging then there can be no difference over time for God. Hence my boring version of Genesis and the failure to part the Red Sea for Moses. Both of those are relevant to difference over time. The word “change” included time within its definition.However, it is thought that G-d exists outside of time and space even though we measure our own lives based on time.
Which automatically invalidates any use of time-related words, such as change, cause, effect, before, after etc.That is, the actions that G-d takes can be viewed sub specie aeternitatis rather than according to a linear perspective of time.
That’s only how we humans perceive it because we exist in time. Naturally, when God “reaches” into time, it appears to us as movement because of the limited nature of our continuum. But even what we perceive as God doing is in fact part of his unchanging nature. What he does to us in time is in fact “part” of his eternal Act.Jesus answered, “Before Abraham was, I am.”
There you have the difference between time and God’s knowing, his operation.
God moves, but he is unchanging. His movement is operation, his movement is not “becoming different”.
Actually, there is no “now” in God either. There is only “is” in God. We are only “now”, always in our being “now”. We are not in our past nor in our future, we are only materially “now”.That’s only how we humans perceive it because we exist in time. Naturally, when God “reaches” into time, it appears to us as movement because of the limited nature of our continuum. But even what we perceive as God doing is in fact part of his unchanging nature. What he does to us in time is in fact “part” of his eternal Act.
But God by himself cannot move; it is impossible. Otherwise, if he were capable of movement, that would mean in one moment, he would be in one place but not in other, then the next moment, in another place but not in the previous. This would therefore mean a finite God, which is contrary to the faith.
Or even if we were to limit “movement” to “doing”. Still not acceptable because this would mean God is doing something at one time but the next he is not doing it anymore. This means he’s (1) bounded by time and (2) finite, since he is doing something then ceasing to do it. This means there is cessation in God and something in him (operation) is not infinite. For an infinite, eternal God, this is not possible. This is what we mean by “God is pure Act”.
Since in God there is no past, present or future, only “now”, there is therefore no movement in him, either spatially or operationally. Anything he is and does are infinite and eternal.