Open Theists Misunderstand the Doctrine of Impassibility
According to Bob Enyart, "Impassibility means that God has no emotion."With this simplistic statement, Enyart, and each Open Theist who follows his lead, eviscerates yet another straw man, only to find nothing but straw "oozing" out.
He gets it from scripture.Enyart said:C.S. Lewis, a man I love but disagree with on this point, wrote that, "We correctly deny that God has passions He cannot be affected by love" (Miracles, 1960, pp. 92 93). Where in the world did Lewis get this notion from?
Well, actually, he does. C.S. Lewis was speaking of the doctrine of impassibility that does not mean God is without emotion or love, but rather that He is in full control of His emotions and that He cannot be moved emotionally against His will. He loves because He chooses to love, not because someone evoked it from Him. Further, it can be said that God's emotions are unlike human emotions; not of like passions (Ac 14:15 Jas 5:17) He is not subject to mood swings. God's emotions are all perfectly volitional and purposefully determined by Him.Enyart said:Not from Scripture.
Statements like these stagger the mind. What is more humanistic than to raise man up by bringing God down? This is precisely what process-theology and all of its Open-Theistic variants seek to do. I know, I know. Open Theism is not process theology. But Calvinism is Christianized Greek philosophy? Enough already with the special pleading.Enyart said:This error shows the extent of humanist influence on popular Christian belief.
There is also a philosophical naivete that often bubbles (even bursts) to the surface in my discussions with Open Theists concerning the meaning of the word absolute. Just watch.
See? It does not mean that God cannot change at all. It means He is completely free to change or emote as He so chooses, without any constraint or compulsion or limitation whatsoever, from anyone or by anything. The word absolute comes from the Latin absolutus, which is the coupling of ab (from) and solvere (to loosen). Thus, the word means to be free from all restraint or boundaries: true libertarian freedom, which only the absolute Being can have.Enyart said:However, like absolute immutability which denies that God can change at all, the doctrine of impassibility is also false.
Nobody denies this. Enyart's continued naive insistence that this somehow undermines classic theism is embarrassing. Perhaps Enyart is spurred on by his experiences of having posed these specious conundrums to less learned, lip-service Calvinists who have not adequately considered these fundamental theological questions. Perhaps, like his heel-nipping cronies on Theology Online, he is bound and determined to reformulate Calvinism into the persistent straw man that keeps rearing its ugly head in his arguments. In any case, he would do well, and would save himself from future embarrassment, if he studied what the Reformers really said and tried to understand what they really meant when they used words like "absolute" and "impassible" and "immutable."Enyart said:We will see below that God can change, as when God the Son became flesh.
Witness the following straw-man effort from Enyart:
Compare this to Louis Berkhof, renowned Reformed theologian, who wrote in 1939:Enyart said:The ways in which the Settled View diminishes God¹s glory and the Open View exalts Him are as many as the differences between a relational Person and a non-relational entity.
The Bible teaches us that God enters into manifold relations with man and, as it were, lives their life with them. There is change round about Him, change in the relation of men to Him, but there is no change in His being, His attributes, His purpose, His motives of action, or His promises. (Readings in Christian Theology, Vol. 1, Erickson, Millard J., Ed., The Attributes of God, p. 341.)
End notes:Louis Berkhof (1873-1957) - Dutch Reformed scholar and former president of Calvin Theological Seminary. A well-read master of many disciplines, he is best remembered for his eloquent and insightful defenses of orthodox theology in the face of liberalism. His work is quoted by systematic theologians even outside Reformed circles. Titles: The Assurance of Faith; Foundations of Christian Education (with Cornelius Van Til); History of Christian Doctrines; I Believe Because...; Introduction to Christian Doctrine; Introduction to the New Testament; Manual of Christian Doctrine; Manual of Reformed Doctrine; Principles of Biblical Interpretation; Summary of Christian Doctrine; Systematic Theology (Source: http://faith.propadeutic.com/)
©James Hilston, August 2005