As Dolezal explains, our theology has changed. More specifically, our doctrine of God has changed, and Dolezal argues that this change has not been for the better. His book, therefore, begins by defining the basic differences between classical Christian theism and what he calls “theistic mutualism.” He argues that theistic mutualism has infiltrated evangelical and Reformed theology, gradually displacing classical Christian theism. But what are classical Christian theism and theistic mutualism, and what are the differences between these two doctrines of God? Here, we can only summarize the main ideas explained more fully in Dolezal’s work. As he explains, classical Christian theism “is marked by a strong commitment to the doctrines of divine aseity, immutability, impassibility, simplicity, eternity, and the substantial unity of the divine persons. The underlying and inviolable conviction is that God does not derive any aspect of His being from outside Himself and is not in any way caused to be” (All That Is in God, p. 1). We see this doctrine expressed, for example, in chapter 2 of the Westminster Confession of Faith quoted above.
Theistic mutualism, in contrast with classical Christian theism, tends to reject many of these teachings as defined historically. As Dolezal explains, “In an effort to portray God as more relatable, theistic mutualists insist that God is involved in a genuine give-and-take relationship with His creatures” (pp. 1–2). There is a tendency to reject or radically redefine divine attributes such as simplicity, eternity, immutability, and impassibility. John Frame, for example, is clearly not satisfied with the classical doctrine of immutability. He writes:
Theologians have sometimes described God’s relenting as “anthropomorphic.” There is some truth in that description, for divine relenting is part of the historical interaction between God and his people, an interaction in which God’s activity is closely analogous to human behavior. (Systematic Theology, 376–77)
Frame then goes on to reject the classical theistic understanding of divine eternality, immutability, and simplicity:
But the historical process does change, and as an agent in history, God himself changes. On Monday, he wants something to happen, and on Tuesday, something else. He is grieved one day, pleased the next. In my view, anthropomorphic is too weak a description of these narratives. In these accounts, God is not merely like an agent in time. He really is in time, changing as others change. And we should not say that his atemporal, changeless existence is more real than his changing existence in time, as the term anthropomorphic suggests. Both are real. (Systematic Theology, 377)
This is radically different from the classical theistic doctrine as expressed, for example, in the Westminster Confession.
Dolezal continues his explanation: “Theistic mutualism is committed to univocal thinking and speaking with regard to God and the world and thus conceives God as interacting with the world in some way like humans do, even if on a much grander scale” (p. 2). Dolezal observes that such ideas have been expressed in their strongest form by process theologians and in a slightly weaker form by open theists of various stripes. Dolezal recognizes that conservative evangelical and Reformed theologians who teach theistic mutualism rightly reject process theology and open theism. He argues, however, that despite their differences with process theology and open theism, they still share a similar divine ontology (pp. 3–4). All allow for some measure of change and/or duality in the very being of God. Frame expresses such change and duality of existence in the sentences quoted above and seems to recognize the point Dolezal has made when he says, “My approach bears a superficial resemblance to process theology, which also recognizes two modes of existence in God, transcendent and immanent, sometimes called the ‘primordial’ and ‘consequent’ natures of God” (Frame, Doctrine of God, p. 572, emphasis mine). It is important to emphasize that Frame says that the resemblance is only “superficial.” He clearly states that process theology is unbiblical and notes the differences between it and his own view (pp. 572–73). We cannot downplay these differences. They are real. Dolezal, however, observes that since both claim that there are “two modes of existence in God,” there are also troubling similarities.
Keith A. Mathison | “Unlatched Theism: An Examination of John Frame’s Response to All That Is in God” | November 2017
RESOURCES
- Subscribe To The Heidelblog!
- The Heidelblog Resource Page
- Heidelmedia Resources
- The Ecumenical Creeds
- The Reformed Confessions
- The Heidelberg Catechism
- Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008)
- Why I Am A Christian
- What Must A Christian Believe?
- Heidelblog Contributors
- Make No Compromise With Sin—Judas, Revoice, and Raising the Black Flag
- Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button or send a check to
Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization.
Heidelblog
The Heidelblog has been in publication since 2007. It is devoted to recovering the Reformed confession and to helping others discover Reformed theology, piety, and practice.
More by Heidelblog ›
Currently I am studying WCF 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, in Confessing the Faith, by Chad Van Dixhoorn, in order to understand the Classic Reformed Doctrine of God, especially Aseity (self-derived, self-existent, having independent existence). Is God’s Aseity essential?
God’s Aseity escaped me until I searched the Scriptures for the doctrine of Aseity. John 5:26 establishes the Doctrine of Aseity, “God HAS Love. . .” Has God ever consulted any creature about love? No. It seems obvious that creatures do not have love or even know love outside of God’s Grace.
When I consider love, there is not a reciprocal relationship where God asks or engages His created beings but rather indicates the fact of His Aseity by the presence of His Grace in His people. John 14:21 states the fact of the response God’s people to God Aseity: “He who has My Commandments and keeps them IS the one who LOVES Me; and he who LOVES Me WILL BE LOVED by My Father, and I WILL LOVE him and WILL DISCLOSE Myself to him. (Verbs in CAPS are indicative mood.)
If a professor ignores God’s Aseity and it’s established doctrine in WCF 2.2, then students can be easily deceived about the distance between God the Creator and me, a creature whom He loved in Christ to believe or hated to unbelief.
If a teacher neglects God’s Aseity (WCF II.2) then what outrage results regarding God’s Eternal Decree WCF III. 1-8?
How weighty is it to find that Frame’s theology is “errant?” I struggle with calling it something less than heresy, because I see it as “another gospel,” not the True Gospel. This is not a rhetorical question. Is Frame’s redefining of the classical teaching on the attributes of God sufficiently threatening to sound doctrine that his work should not be used in church classes and as a valid source for seeking growth in wisdom and biblical understanding? And not just Frame, but his comrades in errancy named in this article.
I have friends who were students under frame at RTS Orlando and they affirmed he taught immutability, simplicity etc without question. Perhaps it is an error in his communication?
He is in error, but an error does not necessarily lead to another gospel. He does not (did not) preach or teach salvation by works, or arminianism for example, which would lead to “another gospel.” His rightful desire to explore God’s relation to his creatures led to some errors, but he is still firmly reformed, and there is much of his teaching still I would argue beneficial for the church. Many scholars have argued views very different from that of most of the reformed church, yet we can still appreciate their teaching and use it wisely. Some Reformed seminaries even sometimes use works from liberal scholars (who deny inerrancy) because they have still had some beneficial research. (I personally don’t think this is the wisest, but friends in seminary have acknowledged this)
Ben,
I was John’s student from 1984 to 1987 and his colleague from 1997 to 2001. I have read fairly extensively in his work and he does raise serious questions about the traditional doctrine of immutability. I have a review forthcoming on the Heidelblog of his concise theology. Stay tuned.
She also my review of his full systematic theology.
https://heidelblog.net/2016/01/should-i-buy-it-a-book-review/
I have read your review before and appreciate the time and effort you put in to it. I’ll look towards that upcoming review.
Because I know there was an mixed history between frame and WSCAL, I appreciate reading both your, frame, and others views on each other, while trying to do so graciously. From my small perspective, I think both of you have in your long years of service done much for the church.
All the best
Ben,
This is not a personal thing. I appreciated John’s teaching as a student, but over the years, as I studied Reformed orthodoxy, I came to realize that his theological method and several of his conclusions were at variance with what we confess.
You can see this for yourself in his volume on the doctrine of God. You can also see it in his volume responding to open theism.
These are not tenuous inferences that people are seeing.
My apologies, I was not implying at all that these matters are somehow “things indifferent” as they say. I was just expressing again my gratitude for both your and his contributions and ministry in the church.
Thank you for highlighting this. I have not read Dolezal’s book, but have listened to a number his sermons and a Podcaster interviewing him. A vigorous mind and an excellent teacher. He is doing a great service to the saints in his work.
I would enjoy a heidlecast explaining some of the differences in Process Theology, Open Theism, Mutual Theism and Classical Theism.
Hi Frank,
Done!
Check out this Heidelcast series.
Tri-Perspectivalism strikes again. and Frame’s biblicism is showing.
Thank you for posting this!
Dr. Dolezal has done the church a great service by shedding light on the contemporary departure from classical theism and putting forth a great case, while undoubtedly scholarly and deeply philosophical—which will, at times, stretch both the average Reformed and evangelical congregant’s mind (at least it does for an average bear like myself), pointing us back, simply stated, to know God as God.
Our friends at the Presbycast just interviewed Dr. Brite on this subject (“Doctrine of God for Dummies”); might be worth giving a listen: https://www.youtube.com/live/nJGPvj2mCPM?feature=shared
“For I am the Lord, I change not” (Mal. 3:6.)
At this point I’ll leave the philisophical gymnastics to the scholars on what the word “change” means. It seems pretty clear to me that it means what it means, He means what He means and we should take it as such, contextually of course.
After reading Mr. Dolezal’s (and Mr. Mathison’s) response to Mr. Frame, I believe him to be correct in his view that Mr. frame is errant in his view and that constructing a straw man arguement only shows Mr. Frames weakness on this ever-so important subject.
My thoughts? Of course God doesn’t change, you silly man. I mean…pfff