absolutely
John 1:1-14 And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth.
A change in God is not compatible with classical theism.
https://reknew.org/2021/10/what-does-a-perfect-god-look-like/
https://reknew.org/2017/04/classical-theisms-unnecessary-paradoxes/
https://reknew.org/2017/04/challenging-assumptions-classical-theism/
https://reknew.org/2007/12/do-you-believe-god-is-pure-actuality/
One quote from the 4th article on pure actuality,
“The basis of the classical view of God as pure actuality (actus purus) is the Aristotelian notion that potentiality is always potential for change and that something changes only because is lacks something else. So, a perfect being who lacks nothing must be devoid of potentiality, which means it must be pure actuality.
I think this perspective is misguided on a number of accounts.
First, if all our thinking about God is to be centered on Jesus Christ, the definitive revelation of God (Heb. 1:1-3), I don’t see how we could ever come to the conclusion that God is devoid of potentiality. In Christ, God became something he wasn’t previously – namely, a human being. This entails that God had the potential to become a human being. And this alone is enough to dismiss the “God as pure actuality” idea.
I would argue this insight is confirmed with every verb ascribed to God in the Bible. Whenever God acts in time, it implies that God first had the potential to do what he did and then he did it. Aristotle’s actus purus deity can engage in no such activities…”