The nature of God’s intellect has been a profound topic of theological discussion throughout Christian history. When Herman Bavinck boldly said of God’s knowledge, “The notion that something should be unknown to him is dismissed as absurd,” he stood in line with the great tradition of Christian thought.[1] This assertion no longer represents the views of some scholars and lay people who affirm either that God is becoming or that God’s mind changes while his nature stays the same. This article explores the debate over whether God’s intellect is identical to His nature, examining scriptural evidence, the philosophical implications, and the theological tradition.

How could Christians of the past and contemporary Christian thinkers argue God knows the future perfectly since the Bible clearly describes God as “gaining new information” and reacting to “new situations?[2]  Did God not know what Nineveh would do (Jonah 3:4-10)? Was he surprised the city repented? Did God really become overwhelmed with regret and decide to destroy Israel only to be calmed down and persuaded to act better by Moses’ intercession for the people (Ex 32)? Is divine omniscience, and especially God’s perfect knowledge of the future, simply the imposition of Hellenistic philosophy on Scripture or the acceptance of theological tradition over Scripture? If the Bible affirms God “learns,” “changed his mind,” or reacted to new situations, how can anyone say God already knew what would happen?

Reasons to Reject God’s Perfect Knowledge of the Future

The 18^th and 19^th century saw the rise of a range of views now known as open theism. Open theism refers to the affirmation that the future is, in some way, “open” before God—God does not necessarily know the future. This range of positions is propelled by  those who deny God’s knowledge of the future:

1) to protect a libertarian view of human free will;

2) to protect God’s goodness in the presence of evil;

3) the Kantian influence which affirms that even God is in a state of self-actualization;

4) those who wanted to see God as being shaped by his relationship with his creation; and

5) those who reject anthropomorphic descriptions of God and literalize descriptions of divine ignorance.

While each of these views deserve significant reflection, it is important to notice the philosophical milieu of the 18^th and 19^th centuries led the way for these views. Premodern Christian writers had little room in their imagination for a God who did not know the future.

Reasons To Affirm God’s Perfect Knowledge of the Future

1. The Bible Teaches God Knows the Future

Despite the appeal of open theism, traditional Christian theology affirms God’s perfect knowledge of the future.  While some Scriptures imply God doesn’t know the future, it is important to as what else the Bible say about God’s knowledge of and relationship with our future? Psalm 139 teaches “You know when I sit down and when I rise up; you discern my thoughts from afar” (139:2). And “Even before a word is on my tongue, behold, O LORD, you know it all together” (Ps 139:4).

2. The Bible Teaches God Does Not Change His Mind

Since God knows the future and is unchanging, the Bible often affirms that God does not and cannot change his mind.

• “God is not a man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?” (Num 23:19).
• “the Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for he is not a man, that he should have regret” (1 Sam 15:29).
• “I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed” (Mal 3:6).
• With God “there is no variation or shadow due to change” (Js 1:17).

God’s understanding is “beyond measure” (Ps 147:5). It seems then, that any measure or limit attached to God’s knowledge should be rejected outright.

3. The Bible’s Use of Anthropomorphic Language

 God cannot know and not know the future. God cannot change his mind and not be able to change his mind. These are true contradictions. Both can’t be true in the same way. What is to be done with the seemingly contradictory biblical testimony? To avoid contradiction in Scripture (and even contradiction in the same chapter as in 1 Samuel 15), Christian theologians have argued descriptions of God learning, changing, or becoming are to be understood anthropomorphically. Bavinck said, “True, the manner in which he obtains knowledge is sometimes stated. In striking anthropomorphic language (Gen 3:9ff.; 11:5; 18:21; etc), but he nevertheless knows everything.”[3] Anthropomorphic language should be accepted because there is no way to literally describe God since he is beyond comparison (Is 46:5).

If one accepts the use of anthropomorphic language in Scripture, then contradictions in Scripture can be avoided and the descriptions of God can be harmonized.[4] If one does not accept the use of anthropomorphic language, then it becomes difficult to trust the Bible in general, God’s revelation of himself since it is contradictory, and God’s promise to provide for the future. Furthermore, the history of Christian thought before the 19^th century must be cast aside.

4. God’s Essence and Attributes as One

Historically, Christian thinkers argued that God’s essence—what fundamentally makes him God—is identical to His attributes. This means that God is not a complex being composed of separate characteristics. Instead, his essence and attributes are perfectly unified. God’s essence refers to the fundamental nature or blueprint that defines what something is. For God, His essence is His very being. Attributes are the qualities or characteristics that describe something. In God’s case, His attributes include His goodness, power, omniscience, omnipresence, and more.

Why should we believe God’s essence is identical to his attributes? Aquinas cited Hilary saying: “For Hilary says in his book On the Trinity, 7, 11: Existence is not an accident in God, but the subsisting truth, the abiding cause, and the natural property of his essence.[5] He also looked to Boethius who said, “in his book On the Trinity 2, that the divine substance is existence itself, and all other existence proceeds therefrom.”[6]

Here are four reasons why we should accept the principle that God’s essence is identical to his attributes.

Divine Aseity

Since God is not caused by anything or anyone, then his existence must be complete in itself. Whatever is in God, therefore, must be eternal, necessary, and perfect (without lack). Furthermore, since God is the first cause, nothing supplies being to God or shapes his existence. A spiritual cause cannot be shaped by a physical effect.

Since God is not made to be, then God does not become. Aquinas said:

• “The divine essence exists singly in itself, and is individualized in itself.”[7]
  • “The essence of a thing is either the thing itself, or is related to it in some way as cause, since a thing derives its species from its essence. But nothing can in any way be a cause of God”[8]
  • “whatever is becoming to a thing (besides its essence) is becoming to it through some cause: for those things which are not one essentially must be united through some cause, if they are united together. Therefore, existence is becoming to that quiddity through some cause. Either, then, this cause is something essential to that thing, or the essence itself, or else it is some other thing. If the former, and the essence exists according to that existence, it follows that a thing is a cause of its own existence.”[9]
  • “That which is not its own essence is related in respect of some part of itself to that essence, as potency to act. Therefore, the essence is signified by way of form (for instance, ‘humanity’). But there is no potency in God.”[10]

Divine Perfection:

God is considered the ultimate perfection. If there were a distinction between God’s essence and His attributes, it could imply a gap or deficiency, suggesting that His essence might not fully express His attributes or vice versa. Such a notion conflicts with the idea of God as absolute perfection.

Divine Simplicity:

The concept of divine simplicity asserts that God is not composed of parts or separate elements. A being with distinct parts suggests complexity and potential limitations. As the ultimate source of existence, God transcends such limitations, embodying simplicity and avoiding any possibility of internal imperfections.

God is not composed of parts (God is “without body, parts, or passions”); therefore God cannot be other than God. Aquinas said:

• “Now necessary existence, if it belong to a quiddity which is not that existence itself, is either inconsistent with or repugnant to that quiddity—as existence in itself is to the quiddity of whiteness—or else is consistent or associated with it—for instance, that whiteness exist in some other thing.”[11] 
• “Each thing exists by its own existence. Therefore, that which is not its own existence does not exist necessarily in itself. But God exists necessarily in himself. Therefore, God is his own existence.”[12]
• “If God’s existence is not his essence—and it cannot be a part of him, since the divine essence is simple.”[13]
• “Everything in which essence and existence are distinct is composite. But God is not composite.”[14]

Purity and Unity: If God’s attributes were separate from His essence, they might be seen as diluted or limited. For instance, if “goodness” were a separate attribute from God, it wouldn’t embody the absolute, unlimited goodness that defines Him. God’s attributes, being one with His essence, reflect His pure and unified nature.

God’s very existence depends upon his essence. Since God exists and God’s existence is necessary, then God’s attributes are identical to his existence. For God to be is for God to be as he is. Whatever God is, God must be. God’s attributes cannot be separated from God’s existence. Nothing in God becomes or is made.

                  As this principle is applied to God’s knowledge, then, we understand God’s knowledge to be essential to God’s being. If God’s knowledge is imperfect, then God is imperfect. If God’s knowledge is mutable, then God is mutable. If God’s knowledge changes, then God is also in a constant state of change. If this is true, the biggest question for Christians would be who caused God rather than who God is.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the timeless and unchanging nature of God’s intellect is not merely a philosophical construct or a relic of Hellenistic thought imposed upon Scripture. Rather, it is a foundational biblical truth with profound theological implications. The weight of scriptural evidence, coupled with the logical necessity of divine simplicity and perfection, strongly supports the traditional Christian understanding of God’s omniscience.

While anthropomorphic language in the Bible may seem to suggest divine ignorance or changeability, a holistic reading of Scripture reveals these as accommodations to human understanding rather than literal descriptions of God’s nature. The alternative—a God who learns, changes, or is surprised by future events—raises serious theological and philosophical problems that undermine the very foundations of Christian faith and practice.

Affirming God’s perfect knowledge of the future is not an academic exercise, but a crucial pillar of Christian theology. It ensures the reliability of prophecy, the certainty of God’s promises, and the coherence of divine providence. Moreover, it preserves the doctrine of God’s aseity and simplicity, maintaining His status as the supreme and self-existent being.

As we grapple with the complexities of divine foreknowledge and human free will, we must resist the temptation to diminish God’s nature to fit our limited understanding. Instead, we should humbly acknowledge the transcendence of God’s intellect, recognizing that His ways of knowing are as far above ours as the heavens are above the earth. Ultimately, the doctrine of God’s eternal and unchanging intellect invites us to trust more deeply in His wisdom and sovereignty. It challenges us to align our lives with His perfect knowledge and unchanging will, finding comfort in the assurance that nothing in our past, present, or future can surprise or overwhelm our all-knowing God.

---

[1] Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics 2: 192.

[2] For example, God is said to “repent,” “change his mind,” “regret,” say “now I know,” etc.

[3] Bavinck Reformed Dogmatics 2:192.

[4] These contradictions concern both direct affirmations of God’s knowledge or lack of knowledge of the future and descriptions of God as the one who providentially shapes history and the future for his purposes (Rom 11:36).

[5] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles 1.C22.12.

[6] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles 1.C22.12.

[7] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles 1.C21.5.

[8] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles 1.C21.5.

[9] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles 1.C22.7.

[10] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles 1.C21.5.

[11] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles 1.C22.

[12] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles 1.C22.5.

[13] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles 1.C22.6.

[14] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles 1.C22.9.