I keep hearing people say Calvin believed in immutability and that God never changes, but every time someone tries to prove it, they always quote a single line from the Institutes that, when isolated, sounds strong but isn't airtight by itself. They’ll cite something like:
Okay, but that’s not necessarily saying more than what many of us would already affirm. Namely, that God doesn’t get pushed around by outside forces and doesn’t change His moral character. Some have even stated directly that immutability "is understood in the sense that He cannot become what He is not."
That’s not the same as saying that God is incapable of any change whatsoever, in any sense, including relational or emotional changes and this ambiguity has lead many to suppose that there was some wiggle room in Calvin's conception of immutability and so I felt the need to establish once and for all whether Calvin actually meant the stronger, absolute kind of immutability that rules out all change, or whether he left some room for God to interact in time and respond dynamically.
Calvin absolutely denied all change in God. He did not just say that God doesn’t sin or make mistakes or flip-flop like a human king might. He said that God cannot in any way experience change, whether it be in mind, in will, in intention, or even in emotional expression. He interpreted every Scripture that suggests change as merely an accommodation to our human perspective and not as a literal description of what God is actually like. Here’s the fuller context from Institutes I.17.13:
Notice that this is not a statement about God’s moral consistency; it is a metaphysical claim that all expressions of change in God are non-literal. Even God being “grieved” is ruled out as a real emotion. Calvin doubles down on this by calling it “a fixed principle” that God’s will is unchangeable, and that it is inseparable from His power. He writes in Institutes I.17.6:
So even the idea that God might reconsider or respond to unfolding events is dismissed from the outset.
This rejection of all change in God did not come from Scripture. It came from Greek philosophy, particularly from Plato and Aristotle, and was brought into Christianity through Augustine and later through others like Aquinas. Plato taught that the truly perfect must be unchanging, because any change would necessarily be a move toward something worse. In The Republic Book II, Plato makes this logic explicit. Here is how the dialogue unfolds between Socrates and Adeimantus:
This is where the doctrine comes from. The idea that any change implies deficiency either prior to, or resulting from the change, was not a biblical conclusion, it was a philosophical axiom. Augustine picked this up this directly.
Aquinas systematized this even further in his theology, saying that God is actus purus—pure actuality—and therefore:
So the very concept of change is redefined so that it is logically impossible for God to experience it in any way whatsoever. Calvin didn’t come up with this on his own; he inherited the entire framework. He was steeped in Augustine, leaned on medieval theology, and accepted without qualification the classical idea that change entails imperfection. That’s why, when he sees God saying He repented (or relented), or when God expresses regret or sorrow, Calvin immediately explains it away as anthropopathism. In Institutes I.13.1, he lays down the principle clearly:
This “divine baby-talk” idea completely governs how Calvin interprets God’s repentance, regret, anger, or mercy in Scripture. In his view, those are never literal changes in God; they are mere appearances relative to us. It allows him to ignore the plain meaning of the text in favor of what he considers a higher metaphysical truth.
But here’s the thing, scripture actually does show God responding, grieving, relenting, testing, and engaging dynamically with human beings.
If we just read these verses at face value, without importing outside philosophy, they describe a living, relational, responsive God who does interact with His creation in real time. The Bible doesn’t just sound like it’s describing change in God; it plainly says so, unless you’re already committed to a framework that forbids it.
Once you trace the logic of his system back to its roots, it becomes clear that the doctrine of immutability has very little to do with Scripture and everything to do with assumptions inherited from a Greek worldview. Calvin didn’t just believe that God was morally consistent; he believed God was metaphysically frozen. No emotion, no real relationship, no back-and-forth, no change WHATSOEVER. The wiggle room disappears once you understand the whole system.
“Nothing more absurd can be imagined than that God should repent, as if he could be induced by anything external to alter his purpose.”
Okay, but that’s not necessarily saying more than what many of us would already affirm. Namely, that God doesn’t get pushed around by outside forces and doesn’t change His moral character. Some have even stated directly that immutability "is understood in the sense that He cannot become what He is not."
That’s not the same as saying that God is incapable of any change whatsoever, in any sense, including relational or emotional changes and this ambiguity has lead many to suppose that there was some wiggle room in Calvin's conception of immutability and so I felt the need to establish once and for all whether Calvin actually meant the stronger, absolute kind of immutability that rules out all change, or whether he left some room for God to interact in time and respond dynamically.
Calvin absolutely denied all change in God. He did not just say that God doesn’t sin or make mistakes or flip-flop like a human king might. He said that God cannot in any way experience change, whether it be in mind, in will, in intention, or even in emotional expression. He interpreted every Scripture that suggests change as merely an accommodation to our human perspective and not as a literal description of what God is actually like. Here’s the fuller context from Institutes I.17.13:
“When Scripture speaks of God as changing his purpose or being angry or grieved, it is not that any passion is stirred in him, or that there is any change in his will, but because such expressions are accommodated to our capacity, so that we may understand what God is doing in a human way. Nothing more absurd can be imagined than that God should repent, as if he could be induced by anything external to alter his purpose.”
Notice that this is not a statement about God’s moral consistency; it is a metaphysical claim that all expressions of change in God are non-literal. Even God being “grieved” is ruled out as a real emotion. Calvin doubles down on this by calling it “a fixed principle” that God’s will is unchangeable, and that it is inseparable from His power. He writes in Institutes I.17.6:
“We must hold this as a fixed principle: God’s will is so joined with His power that they are the same thing. To ask whether He can do otherwise than He has decreed is foolish and meaningless.”
So even the idea that God might reconsider or respond to unfolding events is dismissed from the outset.
This rejection of all change in God did not come from Scripture. It came from Greek philosophy, particularly from Plato and Aristotle, and was brought into Christianity through Augustine and later through others like Aquinas. Plato taught that the truly perfect must be unchanging, because any change would necessarily be a move toward something worse. In The Republic Book II, Plato makes this logic explicit. Here is how the dialogue unfolds between Socrates and Adeimantus:
Socrates: But surely God and the things of God are in every way perfect?
Adeimantus: Of course they are.
Socrates: Then he can hardly be compelled by external influence to take many shapes?
Adeimantus: He cannot.
Socrates: But may he not change and transform himself?
Adeimantus: Clearly, he said, that must be the case if he is changed at all.
Socrates: And will he then change himself for the better and fairer, or for the worse and more unsightly?
Adeimantus: If he change at all he can only change for the worse, for we cannot suppose him to be deficient either in virtue or beauty.
Socrates: Very true, Adeimantus; but then, would anyone, whether God or man, desire to make himself worse?
Adeimantus: Impossible.
Socrates: Then it is impossible that God should ever be willing to change;
Adeimantus: Of course they are.
Socrates: Then he can hardly be compelled by external influence to take many shapes?
Adeimantus: He cannot.
Socrates: But may he not change and transform himself?
Adeimantus: Clearly, he said, that must be the case if he is changed at all.
Socrates: And will he then change himself for the better and fairer, or for the worse and more unsightly?
Adeimantus: If he change at all he can only change for the worse, for we cannot suppose him to be deficient either in virtue or beauty.
Socrates: Very true, Adeimantus; but then, would anyone, whether God or man, desire to make himself worse?
Adeimantus: Impossible.
Socrates: Then it is impossible that God should ever be willing to change;
This is where the doctrine comes from. The idea that any change implies deficiency either prior to, or resulting from the change, was not a biblical conclusion, it was a philosophical axiom. Augustine picked this up this directly.
“That which is changed is made to be what it was not; and since God is supremely perfect, any change would imply defect.” - City of God XI.10
"But other things that are called essences or substances admit of accidents, whereby a change, whether great or small, is produced in them. But there can be no accident of this kind in respect to God; and therefore He who is God is the only unchangeable substance or essence, to whom certainly being itself, whence comes the name of essence, most especially and most truly belongs." - On the Holy Trinity, Augustine
Aquinas systematized this even further in his theology, saying that God is actus purus—pure actuality—and therefore:
“Every change is from potentiality to actuality, and there is no potentiality in God.” - (Summa Theologica, I, Q9, A1)
So the very concept of change is redefined so that it is logically impossible for God to experience it in any way whatsoever. Calvin didn’t come up with this on his own; he inherited the entire framework. He was steeped in Augustine, leaned on medieval theology, and accepted without qualification the classical idea that change entails imperfection. That’s why, when he sees God saying He repented (or relented), or when God expresses regret or sorrow, Calvin immediately explains it away as anthropopathism. In Institutes I.13.1, he lays down the principle clearly:
“For who even of slight intelligence does not understand that, as nurses commonly do with infants, God is wont in a measure to lisp in speaking to us? Thus such forms of speaking do not so much express what kind of being God is, as accommodate the knowledge of Him to our slight capacity.”
This “divine baby-talk” idea completely governs how Calvin interprets God’s repentance, regret, anger, or mercy in Scripture. In his view, those are never literal changes in God; they are mere appearances relative to us. It allows him to ignore the plain meaning of the text in favor of what he considers a higher metaphysical truth.
But here’s the thing, scripture actually does show God responding, grieving, relenting, testing, and engaging dynamically with human beings.
“And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.” - Genesis 6:6
“Perhaps everyone will listen and turn from his evil way, that I may relent concerning the calamity which I purpose to bring on them.” - Jeremiah 26:3
“Now I know that you fear God.” - Genesis 22:12
“Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them.” - Jonah 3:10
If we just read these verses at face value, without importing outside philosophy, they describe a living, relational, responsive God who does interact with His creation in real time. The Bible doesn’t just sound like it’s describing change in God; it plainly says so, unless you’re already committed to a framework that forbids it.
Once you trace the logic of his system back to its roots, it becomes clear that the doctrine of immutability has very little to do with Scripture and everything to do with assumptions inherited from a Greek worldview. Calvin didn’t just believe that God was morally consistent; he believed God was metaphysically frozen. No emotion, no real relationship, no back-and-forth, no change WHATSOEVER. The wiggle room disappears once you understand the whole system.
