Olsen on Contradictions in Immutability

From Roger Olsen’s Does God Change?:

What I “saw” early on in my theological training, however, was that those evangelical theologians who strongly touted God’s “immutability” were not very consistent about it. At least that’s what I thought I noticed in their writings. On the one hand, I was told, a good evangelical believes God is impervious to any change including having new experiences. On the other hand, I was told, it was the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, equal with the Father and Holy Spirit, who experienced the incarnation including hunger, thirst, temptation, sorrow, pain and even death. The explanation? That he experienced these things only “through the human nature he took on” through Mary.

2 comments

  1. Elsewhere among the writings of this site, Daniel D. Wedon is quoted “God knows or foreknows all contingencies, possibilities and real events in the future.” That is the first time I have read such a clear explanation of the way I believe.

    Yes, of course we have free will. I call it “radical free will.” The future is not set in stone, it is fluid. How then is it possible that God can make the many absolute statements that He has made? If the future is fluid, then how is it that certain results are known?

    The game of checkers has been analyzed to a draw: http://en.chessbase.com/post/500-billion-billion-moves-later-computers-solve-checkers God could play a game of checkers with anyone and declare before hand that He would not be beat. Even though He would not know for certain what moves would be made, He, never-the-less, knows that He would not lose.

    Randy

  2. All the “only the human nature / human Jesus spoke like this” seems to make Christ to a certain extent a deceiver. (Not that He was a deceiver but many theologians seem to be willingly or unwillingly.)

Leave a Reply