Revisiting The Classical Theism Controversy (Divine Immutability)

April 14, 2024

The classical theism controversy was centered on James Dolezal’s book, All That Is In God, published in 2017 by Reformation Heritage Books. In this book, Dolezal criticized a long list of prominent Christian theologians for their deviation from “classical theism”, most notably from the immutability of God. Those on the list included Donald MacLeod (21), James Oliver Buswell (23), Ronald Nash (23), Donald Carson (24), Bruce Ware (24), James I. Packer (31), Alvin Plantinga (68), John Feinberg, J. P. Moreland, William Lane Craig (69), Kevin Vanhoozer (72), Rob Lister (92), Scott Oliphint (93), John Frame (71-73, 92-95), and Wayne Grudem (132-33)[1]. Dolezal termed these people as “theistic mutualism” in contrast with “classical theism”. The center of the issue was about the immutability of God, and in Dolezal’s mind, the people named above deviated from “traditional Christian orthodoxy”, and cited others in pointing out that this would be “advancing an idolatrous form of theism”, “we may as well be content to do without a God at all” (in Ch.1).

There have been ardent supporters of Dolezal’s view from Richard Muller (authored the preface for the book), Carl Truman[2] (multiple articles and lectures on this), Keith Mathison[3], etc. Kevin DeYong[4] and Denny Burk[5] wrote generally appreciative reviews while pointing out some weakness. On the other side, John Frame (retired, and one of the most senior on the list) was the only one vocally replied and he wrote a series of articles[6]. Others responded to Frame in one way or another (Keith Mathison, Mike Riccardi, Kevin DeYoung, Mark Jones, etc.)[7]. Negative reviews of Dolezal’s book were rare[8]. Vern Poythress published The Myster and the Trinity in 2020 (P&R), and at the end, he cautiously weighed the two sides and proposed some directions for both (599-622). This book came late on stage and played little role.

Scott Oliphint was involved in a parallel controversy concerning his early book God with Us (Crossway, 2011) with Paul Helm, Nate Shannon, and James Dolezal[9] (this was before Dolezal’s book was published). The debate stayed online until multiple charges were filed against Oliphint to the Presbytery of the Southwest of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) in 2019[10]. President of Westminster Theological Seminary, Peter Lillback, addressed this in a chapel service on March 27, 2019[11]. One signer on the charges, Jeffrey Waddington, was suspended by WTS as an adjunct faculty member. And this action drew some criticism from others[12]. All four charges against Oliphint were dismissed by the Presbytery of the Southwest of OPC[13] on ground of procedures (unfortunately the original links to the WTS website were no longer available, and the reports currently accessible are from The Aquila Report). Oliphint said he will revise this book, but we have not yet seen its release.

This controversy did not end, and it continues in the writings of some of the participants above (mostly from the classical theism side). The first issue we would like to review is, how to address theological differences. Difference can occur at various levels:

No difference. You totally agree with the view of another person.
Difference in emphasis. You agree with another’s view in general, but you differ in the point of emphasis. You want to stress this and he wants to stress that.
Defective view. You consider him as holding an erroneous view, but it is only at the level of defective.
Heretic view. You consider his view is heretic, outside Christian orthodoxy.
Pagan view. You consider his view as pagan, which is outside Christianity (thus the debate is no longer within the stream of historical Christianity).

It seems no one has any problem with #1 or #2. The difference between #4 and #5 is not critical to most. The key here is #3 and #4. One shall not place a person of #3 in the same category as a person of #4 or #5. If this group of people do not hold the same view, do not lump them together for the convenience of argument. When you spot an error (or a series of errors) in others, you need to define the nature of his error. Is it potentially heretic, or essentially heretic? How far has it deviated from orthodoxy in your mind? In answering these questions, one shall be honest and exercise self-control. A Christian shall not be driven by rhetoric, party spirit, or a simple dislike of a different approach. It is always easy and attractive to paint a picture of crisis, and draw a line amongst people. But is it a legitimate line and is it a crisis as dangerous as you depict? One shall not confuse #3 with #4, or lump #3 with #5. Be honest, be cautious, and be courageous! If you truly think some prominent theologians are advocating heresy or idolatry, act accordingly. Do not simply call out their names, but call out all the seminaries, publishers, and churches that help promoting their views. Their views shall be purged. Do not hide behind an article or a book, and be consistent with your view and stand by it, because one cannot describe his opponents as if they are heretic, but do not actually treat them so. If they are not heretic in your mind, then do not use languages that portray them as such. Are they really “advancing an idolatrous form of theism”? If they are, do not act as a coward; if they are not, do not act as a slander. There are times to throw stones, but you need to be careful when and to whom you throw the stones. Employing incendiary languages for the sake of argument is neither wise nor edifying.

Secondly, as Poythress reminded us (599-610, The Mystery of The Trinity), when we speak of divine immutability, we are not talking about one statement or one doctrine, we are talking about one doctrine and its position in the organic unity of truth. For this case, it is mainly about divine transcendence and divine immanence. The difference between classic theism and theistic mutualism (a derogatory term used by Dolezal), or between classic theism and Christian personalism (a term used by John Frame and Poythress), is that, how Christians should understand and articulate divine transcendence and divine immanence as revealed in Scripture, and it is not centered on whether one acknowledges divine immutability or not (at least for most Reformed theologians named above). Does the classic theism (in itself there is diversity) properly understand both divine transcendence and divine immanence, and properly articulate both in consistency with biblical revelation? The same question is for the Christian personalism (also diversity here). Does one tend to undermine one while upholding the other? Or the other way around?

Let us all admit that a doctrinal articulation in perfect consistency with Scripture is difficult, if not entirely impossible here. This certainly does not mean there is no right or wrong. But this reminds us that everyone’s view has some kind of defects, falling short of the perfection of Scripture. Do proponents of classic theism tend to spell out a weakened view of God’s immanence? Do proponents of Christian personalism tend to show a weakened view of God’s transcendence? Yes. Tend to, I am not saying they actually do all the time. Is the term “God only appears to change” a sufficient/correct description of God’s immanence? Or is the term “God changes” a sufficient/correct description? What about the incarnation of God the Son? What about the terms used to describe God in the Scripture? Are we shamed to repeat them because they may seem to weaken our own view?

Certain expressions of classic theists fail to sufficiently acknowledge the genuineness of God’s interaction with man; certain expressions of Christian personalists fail to sufficiently consider God’s immutability and its implications to God’s interaction with man. Both sides may have something to learn here (not everyone involved is equally wrong, I am just saying in general terms), as Poythress pointed out, including the role of historical theology, technical terms, abstract reasoning, etc. (602), which we will not get into here, though they are important issues. Probably next time.

We may end with a quotation from Bavinck on divine immutability (RD, II, 153-159):

At first blush this immutability seems to have little support in Scripture. For there God is seen as standing in the most vital association with the world. … [after going through biblical data] On this foundation Christian theology constructed its doctrine of immutability. … [then he talks about pantheistic view of confusing being with becoming] The idea of God implies immutability. Neither increase nor diminution is conceivable with respect to God. He cannot change for better or worse, for he is the absolute, the complete, the true being. … Those who predicate any change whatsoever of God, whether respect to his essence, knowledge, or will, diminish all his attributes: independence, simplicity, eternity, omniscience, and omnipotence. This robs God of his divine nature, and religion of its firm foundation and assured comfort. This immutability, however, should not be confused with monotonous sameness or rigid immobility. Scripture itself leads us in describing God in the most manifold relations to all its creatures. While immutable in himself, he nevertheless, as it were, lives the life of his creatures and participates in all their changing states. Scripture necessarily speaks of God in anthropomorphic language. Yet, however anthropomorphic its language, it at the same time prohibits us from positing any change in God himself. There is change around, about, and outside him, and there is change in people’s relations to him, but here is no change in God himself. … Without losing himself, God can give himself, and, while absolutely maintaining his immutability, he can enter into an infinite number of relations to his creatures.

In another place, Bavinck calls God as “Personal Absolute Being” (120, Van Til echoes Bavinck in talking about Personal Absolute). Bavinck sees the tension between God’s transcendence and immanence, and tries to articulate in a way faithful to the totality of God’s revelation. He notes two errors: one may talk about an absoluteness of God while denying the genuineness of God’s personal interaction with creatures; or one may talk about God’s personal interaction with creatures while denying the absoluteness of God. The languages of Bavinck are carefully chosen, “While immutable in himself, he nevertheless, as it were, lives the life of his creatures and participates in all their changing states.” And they present the biblical tension well.

[1] List compiled by John Frame in his response. https://frame-poythress.org/scholasticism-for-evangelicals-thoughts-on-all-that-is-in-god-by-james-dolezal/

[2] https://www.firstthings.com/tag/classical-theism

[3]https://tabletalkmagazine.com/posts/2017/11/book-review-all-that-is-in-god-by-james-dolezal/

[4] https://clearlyreformed.org/all-that-is-in-god/

[5] https://www.dennyburk.com/a-review-of-james-dolezals-all-that-is-in-god/

[6] https://frame-poythress.org/scholasticism-for-evangelicals-thoughts-on-all-that-is-in-god-by-james-dolezal/ and other three followed.

[7] https://tabletalkmagazine.com/posts/2017/11/unlatched-theism-an-examination-of-john-frames-response-to-all-that-is-in-god/ ;

http://thecripplegate.com/simplicity-scholasticism-and-the-triunity-of-god/;

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/immutability-reformed-theology/;

https://calvinistinternational.com/2017/11/27/reviewing-frames-review-of-dolezal/

[8] https://exegesisandtheology.com/2017/12/21/review-of-james-dolezal-all-that-is-in-god-evangelical-theology-and-the-challenge-of-classical-christian-theism/

[9] http://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/2014/06/what-motivates-oliphints-proposals.html;