Classic Theology vs. The Contemporary Case Study

Classic Theology vs. The Contemporary - Case Study ExampleHis judgment of multitude is conditioned on his changeless purpose concerning trespass and conversion. The scriptural embodiment of the doctrine of immutability is probably captured best in 1 Samuel 1529 (RSV) where it is written, And also the Glory of Israel will not take a breather or repent for he is not a man, that he should repent. The scriptural basis of the doctrine of Immutability is fully developed with numerous citations and succinct specificity to unchangeability that enlightens the doctrine. Scriptures offer confirmation that immortal is not mortal with the qualities of lying or a changeableness of mind (Numbers 2319 1 Samuel 1529). thither is a timelessness, unchanging quality to God in a time-dependent, changing world (Psalm 10226). The promises of God are of an eternal nature not capriciously offered to people (Psalm 1104 Isaiah 312). His steadfastness is apparent in his constancy of presence and love (Isai ah 4028). The final book of the English Old volition rings with the words of Malachi in Chapter 3, verse 6 (RSV), For I the LORD do not change therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed. The tonic Testament has few direct citations regarding changeableness. Gods unchangeable nature is restated for these readers in a new context (Hebrews 111 721). small-arm scripture offers examples that can be interpreted to show a disparity in whether God has a changeable nature, the major points of consideration would be that the modern Testament offers no distinct contradiction to the attribute of Gods unchangeableness. A modern reformulation of the classic doctrine of immutability has been penned by James Packer. God is simple (that is, totally integrated), perfect and immutable. These words affirm that he is wholly and entirely involved in everything that he is and does and that his nature, goals, and ways of acting do not change, either for the better (being perfect, he cannot become better) or for the worse. His immutability is not the changelessness of an eternally frozen pose, but the moral consistency that holds him to his own principles of work on and leads him to deal differently with those who change their own behavior towards him. Would you agree more with Vanhoozer or Nygren on this issue? Why? No, They state, from Plato, Aristotle, and the subsequent Hellenistic tradition, the church arrived at the notion that God was altogether unmoved, impassible, immutable, nontemporal and purely actual. Open theists uniformly teach that the church fathers were so influenced by Greek philosophy when they formulated their theology, that the churchs historical and theological understanding of God reflects a more philosophical understanding than a biblical one. Carl Henry rightfully noted, It is true that medieval theologians were awake(predicate) of the teaching of certain Greek philosophers in discussing Gods immutability.