This change confronts us with the question: can we trust our theology? Is it correct? Why are we biblical now but not then? What makes us right and them wrong? What confidence can we have in unshakeable revealed truth if we cannot agree on the central topic of Christianity anymore, namely, God? 

A number of recent evangelical theologians have reshaped and redefined one of the most central doctrines of Christianity: the doctrine of God. In particular, the dogmas of divine simplicity, eternality, infinity, immutability, impassibility, and triune relations of origin have been widely redefined and even rejected. 

Yet these doctrines have been a mainstay of biblical Christianity for centuries, for millennia. These teachings appeared in Christian confessions and in the great writings of Christian theology. Until the twentieth-century, almost every Christian thought they were biblical. But that is no longer the case. 

This change confronts us with the question: can we trust our theology? Is it correct? Why are we biblical now but not then? What makes us right and them wrong? What confidence can we have in unshakeable revealed truth if we cannot agree on the central topic of Christianity anymore, namely, God? 

Before answering that question, consider the following proofs for the above statements. The following paragraphs list the doctrines mentioned above and then cites evangelical theologians who either redefine or reject these doctrines. Afterward, I will reflect briefly on what this means and whether or not we can still trust evangelical theology. (Preview: we can) 

Divine Simplicity

Divine simplicity traditionally meant something like: God is without parts, passions, and possibility. Today, some deny or redefine this doctrine. The two main arguments against divine simplicity are: (1) it is not biblical and (2) it is incoherent. 

John Feinberg, for example, writes, “There is no verse that explicitly teaches that God is simple.” (2001: 327). While this is not his only argument, this probably makes up the primary reason that he rejects the doctrine. Thus, he can conclude, “It seems clear that we cannot hold the static view of God that so many within the classical Christian tradition have held” and “there is ample reason to reject simplicity” (2001: 266, 335). 

John Frame also denies or at least modifies divine simplicity. He writes, “My concern is simply that Scripture does represent God as a complex being. He performs innumerable acts for innumerable reasons. He has innumerable thoughts and plans. His love has innumerable objects. Are we supposed to deny all of these biblical teachings for the sake of the simplicity doctrine?” (2017). 

Wayne Grudem redefines divine simplicity without rejecting its classical formation. Actually, he does not mention the classical definition. No discussion of act and potency exists in his Systematic Theology. Instead, he calls the doctrine “unity” and affirms part of the traditional definition of simplicity but bypasses the metaphysical implications of simplicity (1996: 177). 

Alvin Plantinga finds two philosophical objections to the doctrine. He explains, “In the first place, it is exceedingly hard to grasp or construe this doctrine, to see just what divine simplicity is. Secondly, insofar as we do have a grasp of this doctrine, it is difficult to see why anyone would be inclined to accept it; the motivation seems shrouded in obscurity” (1980: 28). 

Nicholas Wolterstorff tries to explain why divine simplicity should seem so incoherent to modern philosophy. He concludes that we simply have different “ontological styles” than the medievals did (1991: 535). On this, he is right as Charles Taylor, Alisdair McIntyre, and others have demonstrated. 

Eternality 

The traditional doctrine of eternality affirms that God has no beginning nor end and does not exist in time since he experiences no change. This doctrine follows from simplicity and immutability. 

As might be expected, once the former two doctrines lose their force, so does this one. Feinberg thus concludes, “I believe that the best way to understand God’s relation to time is to see God as temporal” (2001: 427). John Frame writes, “Scripture often presents God as acting in time, so it certainly is not possible to exclude God from time altogether” (2013: Loc. 10136-10145). Both theologians believe Scripture teaches this view. 

Part of the reason why is the conviction that what we see in Scripture directly applies to God. John Frame explains, “Eternal life is life without end, in fellowship with the eternal God. So one would naturally think that the term has the same meaning when applied to God” (2013: Loc. 10145-10155). While both do not deny anthropomorphisms, they do start with events as we experience them and then reason upwards to God’s experience of them. 

Wayne Grudem does not quite go so far, yet he does not affirm the traditional doctrine of eternity. He writes, “God has no beginning, end, or succession of moments in his own being, and he sees all time equally vividly, yet God sees events in time and acts in time.” (1996: 168). Later on, he claims that God exists in time but in a nuanced way (1996: 172). For Grudem, God sees the progress of events as he rules time (1996: 172).

Infinity

The traditional doctrine of infinity affirms God’s boundless existence which transcends all being; God has no spacial limits nor can anything circumscribe him. 

John Frame denies the traditional conception of infinity citing Psalm 147:5 as the only biblical evidence. He adds a further caveat that Psalm 147 talks about the infinity of God’s understanding and only is portrayed as such in the KJV (2013: loc. 10070). He thus finds no biblical reason to affirm the infinity of God at least as traditionally defined. 

He hints that the traditional view is too Greek: “In Greek philosophy, infinity is either a negative concept (absence of definite characteristics) or a positive one (existing so far beyond reality that it cannot be named. Both of these concepts reflect what I have called the non-Christian view of transcendence, and as such they are alien to biblical thought” (2013: loc.10070-10079).

Read More