The immutability of God

[MichaelTDoyle]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=752975

This answer appears like a definitive statement on the mystery of the omnipotent God versus the existence of human free will. “He isn’t swayed by our behavior.”

But as a Catholic I believe in intercessory prayer and the mercy of God. Souls get released from Purgatory to heaven with the aid of prayer, but only God’s permissive will could allow those souls to migrate to heaven, yet through a cooperation of human prayers. To say then the prayers did not sway God’s mercy seems more linguistic trickery than an objection. Had we not prayed, the souls would have been there longer. Prayer is efficacious in changing us, but also in requesting mercy.

Another argument would be the hypostatic mystery. Jesus is fully God and experienced change. Jesus is not divided, both God and man simultaneously irreducibly; not either.

Where am I off track?

Thank you for taking the time to consider my concerns. I would like a better understanding of these mysteries. Determinism is a frequent opening discussion with atheists and describing this better may be a way that reason could lead people closer to faith. A better understanding would help me grow in my faith as well.

 

[red85]

God from all eternity determined to admit those souls in purgatory into heaven, sooner if a certain price is paid. The changeability lies in us. In purgatory, we have to pay a certain price and that’s harder, as our prayers are less effectual there. Our prayers are more effectual, however, as we are still in the land of the living, and we can help those souls in purgatory pay off their debts sooner. The debt is fixed - to use a bad example, take your loan payment. The bank represents God. Bank expects your payment and for our purposes here, that’s unchangeable. The bank is unchangeable in that decision. Someone else can step in with money to help you cancel out your debt sooner.

God is God. He doesn’t change. He did not change into a man, but rather, he assumed humanity. His human body is one divine act of creation, because remember, the Virgin Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit. I can think of another bad example to help explain this. When you put on a coat, you don’t change into it. In fact, you assume it and give it a kind of new life. Before it was just a hollow piece of cloth, draped over your chair or hanging on the hook - when you stepped into it, you filled it out, gave it new dimensions, and a new purpose: to serve you and your purposes, which in your case, to keep warm. Where God is concerned, He assumed our nature to show us the way and to redeem, “so immeasurably generous is God’s favor to us.”

I should point out, however, that I am a lowly theology major. I have not been certified by the Church to speak definitively on these matters. I am not a priest. I am not a religious. I think some feedback from the other forums will help the matter more clear, and I’d be interested to see citations of what the Church says on this because it’s been a while since I’ve studied the Incarnation and the attributes of God. Thank you for reading this and please pray for me that I can find a job soon, so I can save up and go on to grad school.

God bless you all.

“How shall I find the words to thank you for your goodness, O God? Shall I visit with the poets? the religious? And combine their gifts and their love for you and make a gift of praises to you? Or immolate my heart now and die to self for Thee, to love Thee as the Seraphims always do around Your stately splendor.”

 

[Linusthe2nd]

This answer appears like a definitive statement on the mystery of the omnipotent God versus the existence of human free will. “He isn’t swayed by our behavior.”

But as a Catholic I believe in intercessory prayer and the mercy of God. Souls get released from Purgatory to heaven with the aid of prayer, but only God’s permissive will could allow those souls to migrate to heaven, yet through a cooperation of human prayers. To say then the prayers did not sway God’s mercy seems more linguistic trickery than an objection. Had we not prayed, the souls would have been there longer. Prayer is efficacious in changing us, but also in requesting mercy.

Another argument would be the hypostatic mystery. Jesus is fully God and experienced change. Jesus is not divided, both God and man simultaneously irreducibly; not either.

Where am I off track?

Thank you for taking the time to consider my concerns. I would like a better understanding of these mysteries. Determinism is a frequent opening discussion with atheists and describing this better may be a way that reason could lead people closer to faith. A better understanding would help me grow in my faith as well.

You are right on track.The answer is that God knows all our acts even before he created us. So you pray for someone today. God has known from all eternity you would do so. So he applies the merits of your prayers now because He has known from all eternity that you would pray for a particular person now. So your prayers do matter. If you don’t understand this let me know and I will try to explain again. Linus

 

[Waiting]

You are right on track.The answer is that God knows all our acts even before he created us. So you pray for someone today. God has known from all eternity you would do so. So he applies the merits of your prayers now because He has known from all eternity that you would pray for a particular person now. So your prayers do matter. If you don’t understand this let me know and I will try to explain again. Linus

Right on. God doesn’t change.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Another argument would be the hypostatic mystery. Jesus is fully God and experienced change. Jesus is not divided, both God and man simultaneously irreducibly; not either.

I joined this forum (on Nov 13, 2004) to ask this same question. After lurking for nine days, I asked this same question. It was my first post.

I have brought this up every couple of years in posts similar to yours (which is similar to mine).

I have never read a reply that I feel really satisfied my question. There seems to be an emphasis of the difference between “absorbed” a human nature, and “assumed” a human nature. Either way, it seems that the ontological nature of God changed with the Incarnation, which ought to be an impossibility.

Of all the mysteries of the Church, this is the one that I find the most difficult to accept (and, actually, all of the other mysteries are quite easy for me to accept). And, yet, it is the one that I must accept the most.

 

[Waiting]

I joined this forum (on Nov 13, 2004) to ask this same question. After lurking for nine days, I asked this same question. It was my first post.

I have brought this up every couple of years in posts similar to yours (which is similar to mine).

I have never read a reply that I feel really satisfied my question. There seems to be an emphasis of the difference between “absorbed” a human nature, and “assumed” a human nature. Either way, it seems that the ontological nature of God changed with the Incarnation, which ought to be an impossibility.

Of all the mysteries of the Church, this is the one that I find the most difficult to accept (and, actually, all of the other mysteries are quite easy for me to accept). And, yet, it is the one that I must accept the most.

I don’t understand why there is confusion here. The human part of Jesus, only his humanity, changed. Our own soul, apart from the human body, doesn’t change. Yes, it can become soiled and need cleansing, but its essence doesn’t change. What am I not understanding?

 

[fisherman_carl]

But as a Catholic I believe in intercessory prayer and the mercy of God. Souls get released from Purgatory to heaven with the aid of prayer, but only God’s permissive will could allow those souls to migrate to heaven, yet through a cooperation of human prayers. To say then the prayers did not sway God’s mercy seems more linguistic trickery than an objection. Had we not prayed, the souls would have been there longer. Prayer is efficacious in changing us, but also in requesting mercy.

I just asked a similar question about Purgatory. Is Purgatory about changing God or about changing us? I think it is about changing us. It’s not about persuading God to be more merciful but about the conversion of sinners.

see my question here - forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=758110

 

[fisherman_carl]

There seems to be an emphasis of the difference between “absorbed” a human nature, and “assumed” a human nature. Either way, it seems that the ontological nature of God changed with the Incarnation, which ought to be an impossibility.

So you are saying because of a change in the material world that the spiritual world is changed? If that is the case then wouldn’t God have changed when he created the universe since that was a change? The eternal nature of God is in the spirit which does not change. God putting on flesh does not change God but the flesh. By doing so the flesh becomes fully human as God intended it to be and his flesh becomes an example of living fully human that is for us to follow. Jesus is fully God and fully human.

The hypostatic union is a mystery. But here is an article that describes the Incarnation - newadvent.org/cathen/07706b.htm

“The Father and I are one.”

• Jn 10:30

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

God’s nature is immutable; God in one of his personhoods did change: Jesus Christ.

Douay-Rheims Bible
And Jesus advanced in wisdom, and age, and grace with God and men.

Though that doesn’t address my original question. I think Linus is correct. The difficulty is our inability to perceive time in the way God does so we have a gap in our intellect regarding determinism and free will.

 

[thenobes]

God’s nature is immutable; God in one of his personhoods did change: Jesus Christ.

No, the human nature that Jesus assumed was accommodated to the immutable nature of God and through that accommodation manifested to us the true nature of God, the extent what it means to be Love and Truth simultaneously.

peace
steve

 

[fred_conty]

I joined this forum (on Nov 13, 2004) to ask this same question. After lurking for nine days, I asked this same question. It was my first post.

I have brought this up every couple of years in posts similar to yours (which is similar to mine).

I have never read a reply that I feel really satisfied my question. There seems to be an emphasis of the difference between “absorbed” a human nature, and “assumed” a human nature. Either way, it seems that the ontological nature of God changed with the Incarnation, which ought to be an impossibility.

Of all the mysteries of the Church, this is the one that I find the most difficult to accept (and, actually, all of the other mysteries are quite easy for me to accept). And, yet, it is the one that I must accept the most.

Here is something from Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma that may help.

Christ ASSUMED a real body, not an apparent body. (De fide.)
Christ ASSUMED not only a body but also a rational soul. (De fide.)

The Divine and the human natures are united hypostatically in Christ, that is, joined to each other in one PERSON. (De fide.)

(a) Christ Incarnate is a single, that is, a sole Person. He is God and man at the same time.

(b) The God-Logos is connected with the flesh by an inner, physical or substantial unification. Christ is not the bearer of God, but is God really.

(c) The human and the divine activities predicated of Christ in Holy Writ and in the Fathers may not be divided between two persons or hypostases, the Man-Christ and the God-Logos, but must be attributed to the one Christ, the Logos become Flesh. It is the Divine Logos, who suffered in the flesh, was crucified, died, and rose again.

(d) The Holy Virgin is the Mother of God since she truly bore the God-Logos become Flesh.

So He assumed a human body and human soul, and 2 natures were joined in one divine person.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Here is something from Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma that may help.

well, go ahead. I doubt it will help (I have read Ott)

Christ ASSUMED a real body, not an apparent body. (De fide.)
Christ ASSUMED not only a body but also a rational soul. (De fide.)

Christ ASSUMED a rational soul at some discrete point in time. The act of Creation was an act of Divine will. God could have chosen to not create Creation. If God had chosen to not create Creation then Christ could have never ASSUMED a rational soul (because no such thing would exist). This introduces potentiality into the nature of God (“potentiality” means it might be one thing or another, but God has no potentiality - he “is” the great “I Am,” pure absolute existence with no possibility of uncertainty). If we follow Ott’s logic to its ultimate conclusion, we are forced to accept the idea that humanity is a “necessary existence” (because Christ could not exist without it). But that is philosophically impossible - only God can possibly be a necessary existence, and a necessary existence cannot be dependent upon a possible existence (such as us humans).

And besides, the eternal Christ has infinity “existed” in a state where he did not possess a “rational soul” (ie, “before” Creation).

The Divine and the human natures are united hypostatically in Christ, that is, joined to each other in one PERSON. (De fide.)

“united hypostatically” means united in nature. It seems to me that an infinite and eternal and unchanging God cannot be “united hypostatically” with anything that is finite and created without changing the nature of God (which is impossible).

I wish I could chat with Ott about this. He may be able to explain his thesis in a manner that I can understand. Alas, I can only hope he will explain it to me in heaven. Or, maybe somebody here could do it for him.

 

[fred_conty]

well, go ahead. I doubt it will help (I have read Ott)

Christ ASSUMED a rational soul at some discrete point in time. The act of Creation was an act of Divine will. God could have chosen to not create Creation. If God had chosen to not create Creation then Christ could have never ASSUMED a rational soul (because no such thing would exist). This introduces potentiality into the nature of God (“potentiality” means it might be one thing or another, but God has no potentiality - he “is” the great “I Am,” pure absolute existence with no possibility of uncertainty). If we follow Ott’s logic to its ultimate conclusion, we are forced to accept the idea that humanity is a “necessary existence” (because Christ could not exist without it). But that is philosophically impossible - only God can possibly be a necessary existence, and a necessary existence cannot be dependent upon a possible existence (such as us humans).

And besides, the eternal Christ has infinity “existed” in a state where he did not possess a “rational soul” (ie, “before” Creation).

“united hypostatically” means united in nature. It seems to me that an infinite and eternal and unchanging God cannot be “united hypostatically” with anything that is finite and created without changing the nature of God (which is impossible).

I wish I could chat with Ott about this. He may be able to explain his thesis in a manner that I can understand. Alas, I can only hope he will explain it to me in heaven. Or, maybe somebody here could do it for him.

I’m not sure how to answer your post but with your patience I will try.

I think you are saying that if God is man, and God is absolute existence, then God as man must exist with no possibility of not existing as man. Since he is God-man then he has to exist as man as well as God, for God would not be all of God if God-man did not exist.
So it is no longer an option for the God-man not to exist. Yet this seems to force God to become man with no possiblity of doing otherwise.

So the real problem is God no longer has a choice in the matter of becoming man.

But Jesus added nothing to God because God was all that he ever was, and is, and will be without ever changing, diminishing, or growing. God is forever the same.

Now it might seem that Jesus in his human nature added something to God. Where did Jesus’ human nature come from? God. God is the author of his own human nature, whereby he gained nothing, but simply was now a man. This human nature is by the power of God, its origin.

So if Jesus didn’t exist, God lost nothing, for he is the source of everything and everything is already contained in him.

Now from Jesus’ point of view, being the Son of the Eternal Father, as man, he gives the same glory to the Father as he always gave as the 2nd person. The 2nd Person is the same person from all eternity as the man Jesus. Nothing new or added is given to the Father by the Man-Son that was not already there before time began…glory, love, thanksgiving… This is the way it was, is, and always will be in the Divine Trinity.

So the answer is that the 2nd Person did not have to become man.

Just some thoughts.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Now it might seem that Jesus in his human nature added something to God. Where did Jesus’ human nature come from? God. God is the author of his own human nature, whereby he gained nothing, but simply was now a man. This human nature is by the power of God, its origin.

I thought that Jesus’ human nature came from Mary, his mother (a human), while his divine nature came from God the Father. I’m pretty sure this is a de fide Doctrine of the Fatih, although I cannot cite it at the moment.

But, even if we trace Mary’s human nature back to the uncorrupt Adam (who was created by God), I am still uncomfortable with the idea that Jesus has a human nature because humans were created by God. After all, so were dogs and cats, but nobody says that Jesus also has a canine and feline nature (and any pet owner will attest that the two have little in common).

 

[Goya]

Below is some fairly authoratative summary of the dogma of immutability of God:

Malachi 3:6:

“Surely, I the Lord, do not change, nor do you cease to be sons of Jacob.”

Hence we have an express revelation, in the form of an express declaration.

Also, from Catholic Encyclopeadia, with additional scriptural passages cited:

In God “there is no change, nor shadow of alteration” (James 1:17); “They * shall perish, but thou shalt continue: and they shall all grow old as a garment. And as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed: but thou art the selfsame and thy years shall not fail” (Hebrews 1:10-12, Psalm 101:26-28. Cf. Malachi 3:6; Hebrews 13:8*). These are some of the Scriptural texts which clearly teach Divine immutability or unchangeableness, and this attribute is likewise emphasized in church teaching, as by the Council of Nicaea against the Arians, who attributed mutability to the Logos (Denzinger, 54-old No. 18), and by the Vatican Council in its famous definition.

newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm#IIC

Furhter, according to Dave Armstrong, in the article I link below, we have express confirmation of the dogma, in the 4th Lateran Council and the Vatican Council, which “teach that God is immutable (incommutabilis) D 428, 1782. Holy Scripture excludes all change from God and positively ascribes to Him absolute immutability.”

Excerpt:

…It is written, I am the Lord, and change not. (Mal. 3,6)

I answer that, From what precedes, it is shown that God is altogether immutable. First, there is some being, whom we call God, and that this first being must be pure act, without any admixture of potency, for the reason that, absolutely, potency is posterior to act (Q.III, A. 3). Now everything which is in any way changed is in some way in potency. Hence it is impossible for God to be in any way changeable.

(Summa Theologica, First Part, Q.9, art.1)

…

Let’s examine now Catholic dogma regarding these matters. First, I consult Dr. Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (edited in English by James Canon Bastible; translated by Patrick Lynch, Rockford, Illinois: TAN Books and Publishers, 1974, from the fourth edition of May 1960; first published in German in 1952):

God is absolutely immutable. (De fide.)

The 4th Lateran Council and the Vatican Council teach that God is immutable (incommutabilis) D 428, 1782. Holy Scripture excludes all change from God and positively ascribes to Him absolute immutability . . .

Also, further down that article, this might be relevant:

Did the Incarnation affect God’s immutability, though? No:

It is to be remembered that, when the Word took Flesh, there was no change in the Word; all the change was in the Flesh. At the moment of conception, in the womb of the Blessed Mother, through the forcefulness of God’s activity, not only was the human soul of Christ created but the Word assumed the man that was conceived. When God created the world, the world was changed, that is, it passed from the state of nonentity to the state of existence; and there was no change in the Logos or Creative Word of God the Father. Nor was there change in that Logos when it began to terminate the human nature. A new relation ensued, to be sure; but this new relation implied in the Logos no new reality, no real change; all new reality, all real change, was in the human nature. Anyone who wishes to go into this very intricate question of the manner of the Hypostatic Union of the two natures in the one Divine Personality, may with great profit read St. Thomas (III:4:2); Scotus (in III, Dist. i); (De Incarnatione, Disp. II, sec. 3); Gregory, of Valentia (in III, D. i, q. 4). Any modern text book on theology will give various opinions in regard to the way of the union of the Person assuming with the nature assumed.

(Catholic Encyclopedia: “The Incarnation”; cf. St. Thomas Aquinas’ related comments in the Summa)…

Link:

socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/01/catholic-dogmas-of-gods-immutability.html

FWIW: I too have had difficulty with this doctrine, and I’m no authority–so I’ll reserve comment–and simply defer to the experts/authoraties, and just share the above cut&paste job.

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.