Posts

A Brief Statement on Divine Impassibility

A Statement of the Doctrine

A standard definition of the doctrine of divine impassibility (DDI) asserts that God does not experience emotional changes either from within or effected by his relationship to creation. He is not changed from within or without; he remains unchanged and unchanging both prior to and subsequent to creation. The doctrine of divine impassibility is generally treated under the doctrine of immutability in the standard books on systematic theology. Immutability means that God is without change. The Scripture is clear on the doctrine of immutability (see Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29; Malachi 3:6; James 1:17) and the logic regarding impassibility should be clear: if God is unchangeable, then He is impassible. If God did in fact experience inner emotional changes, He would be mutable. To suggest otherwise would be to affirm that God was less than perfect to begin with: if He changes it is either for the better or for the worse, neither of which is consistent with the biblical data concerning God.

What the Doctrine Does Not Mean

The doctrine of divine impassibility does not mean that God is without affections. The Bible is clear: God is love (1 John 4:8, 16). The Bible consistently teaches that God does relate to His creatures in terms of love, goodness, mercy, kindness, justice and wrath. An affirmation of divine impassibility does not mean a denial of true affections in God. However, these descriptions of God’s character are not to be understood as changing or fluctuating things. For example, the 2 London Confession of Faith of 1677/1689 affirms impassibility (God is “without passions”) and then goes on to describe God as “most holy, most wise, most free, most absolute…most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth…” The affirmation of impassibility does not result in removing affections from God; rather, the affirmation of impassibility upholds the fact that God is most loving because He cannot decrease nor increase; He is love! The doctrine of divine impassibility actually stresses the absolute-ness of affections in God.

Objections to the Doctrine

Some modern authors have challenged the classical doctrine of impassibility. While there are several reasons for this, two of the most persuasive ones seem to be (1) the biblical descriptions of change occurring in God and (2) the fact that Jesus Christ suffered.

In the first place, when Scripture speaks of change occurring in God, these passages do not describe actual inner emotional changes in God, but rather these passages are a means whereby God communicates “in the manner of men” so that He can effectively reveal His unchanging character to man. For instance, when Scripture speaks of God “repenting” (Genesis 6:6; Judges 2:18; 10:16; etc.), these are called anthropopathic statements. An anthropopathism is when the biblical author ascribes human emotion to God. While this may be a new word to many, most Christians are familiar with the word anthropomorphism. An anthropomorphism is used by the biblical authors when they ascribe human characteristics to God; i.e. when the Scripture says God has eyes, or a mighty right arm, or that He comes down to dwell on Mount Sinai (2 Chronicles 16:9; Isaiah 62:8; Exodus 19:20). Such descriptions are accommodations to man that are designed to communicate certain truths to man. In the same way, anthropopathisms are not descriptions of actual change in God, but are a means to communicate something concerning the character of the infinite God to man in language designed to be comprehended by man who is limited by his finite capacities.

Secondly, the sufferings that Jesus Christ went through were real. He was despised and rejected by men, He was betrayed by Judas, delivered into the hands of the Romans, and at the request of the unbelieving Jews, He was crucified. It is important to remember that Jesus Christ was unique: He is one glorious Person with two natures, human and divine. Christianity from the New Testament period on always predicated the suffering of Christ to His human nature. In other words, Christ as God did not suffer and die, but Christ as Man. There are not two Christs, but one Christ who has two natures. To confine the suffering and death of Christ to His humanity protects divine impassibility. Conversely, impassibility protects from the notion of a God who suffers and dies.

Conclusion

In conclusion, there is much more that can be said. The goal with this post is simply to provide a basic definition, explanation, and to highlight why the doctrine is essential. It is crucial to understand that it is the doctrine of impassibility that secures God’s relational character to His creatures; it alone provides the foundation for the confession’s declaration that God is “most holy, most wise, most free, most absolute…most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth…”

 

 

Justification: Understanding the Classic Reformed Doctrine by J.V. Fesko

The doctrine of justification by faith alone is foundational to biblical Christianity.  The doctrine has been a constant target of heretics and was central to the Apostle Paul’s epistle to the Galatians.  A study of church history shows that the attack upon the doctrine did not cease after Paul wrote to the Galatians.  The church therefore has had to contend earnestly for the truth of justification and Dr. Fesko has provided the church with an excellent resource to aid her in the presentation, defense, and propagation of the doctrine.  The book is comprehensive in its scope and details the various aspects of the doctrine, namely the doctrine considered historically, exegetically, and theologically.

In chapter 1, Dr. Fesko sets forth justification in church history.  He deals with the patristic era (100-600) under the following subsections:  the Augustine-Pelagius debate, semi-Pelagianism and later Augustinianism.  He then treats the Middle Ages (600-1500) giving specific attention to Aquinas, Scotus, and broader theological developments.  The third section of the historical development is the Reformation and Post-Reformation era (1517-1700).  He ably handles Luther, Calvin, the counter-reformation, and post-reformation era.  The section on the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries proved especially helpful as Fekso highlights some inconsistency in Jonathan Edwards.  He finishes the historical survey with the twentieth century to the present and deals specifically with Barth, Bultmann and Kasemann, and the New Perspective on Paul.

The second chapter deals with matters concerning prolegomena.  There is an area where I disagree with the author’s treatment.  He emphasizes that “Reformed theology has recognized that theological language about God is not univocal but ultimately analogical” (p.62).  On p.65 he rightly points out, “Because soteriology, and more specifically justification, is inextricably bound with Christology in the concrete reality of the incarnation.”  When comparing these two statements though, I wonder if we only know the “concrete reality of the incarnation” analogically?  This difference notwithstanding, Fesko competently shows that justification is not one “among many metaphors of our redemption” (p.91) but that it is “at the center of Paul’s thought” (p.92).

After a helpful discussion of the structure of redemptive history (chapter 3), Fesko then addresses specific theological issues relative to justification.  Chapter 4 is an excellent presentation and defense of the covenant of works.  After some introductory and definitional comments on covenant, Fesko sets forth an able treatment of covenant in Genesis 1-3 with appeals to other passages for support (i.e., Gen. 6:18; Hos. 6:7; Rom. 5:12-19).  As Fesko says later on in the book, “as we have seen throughout our study, one’s soteriology must begin with a consideration of protology” (p.401) and his treatment of Adam in the Garden is stimulating.  The first Adam was a type and under the covenant of works.  The last Adam was the antitype who fulfilled the covenant works and secured the redemption of His people.

Chapter 5 naturally leads to “Justification and the Work of Christ.”  Fesko shows how Christ completed the dominion mandate (1 Cor. 15:20-28) and through His obedience laid the foundation for justification.  Since the opponents of justification by faith alone have vigorously attacked the covenant of works and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, Fesko provides a welcomed antidote with which to combat the detractors.  His treatment of the active and passive obedience of Christ is both biblical and confessional and will stand the scrutiny of the gainsayers.

In chapter 6, Fesko takes up “Justification in its Historical Context” and basically disposes with the historical revisionism of Sanders, Dunn, and Wright with their insistence on covenantal nomism in second temple Judaism.  Pertinent to this theme, Fesko sets forth a historically accurate and exegetically sound interpretation of Paul’s use of “works of the law.”  Fesko rejects the notion that justification was for Paul an ecclesiastical (or sociological) concern and sides with the Protestant reformers (and Paul) who defined justification as the answer to the question as to how a sinful man can stand before a holy God.

In chapter 7, Fesko highlights the nature of justification by faith alone.  Through methodical and thorough exegesis of relevant passages, Fesko demonstrates the accuracy of the Westminster Shorter Catechism’s emphases concerning justification:  1) it is by faith alone, 2) it involves the remission of sins, and 3) it entails the imputation of righteousness.  There are certain things that happen in history that should not try and be improved upon, and one of those things is question and answer #33 in the Westminster Shorter Catechism.  Fesko does not try and improve upon, but he ably demonstrates the exegetical foundation for the divine’s definition.

In chapter 8, Fekso takes on “Justification and the New Perspective on Paul” which should be of great benefit to Reformed Baptists.  N.T. Wright is embraced by a large number of evangelicals and reformed people alike.  I have personally heard people say, “I know he gets justification wrong, but he sure does a great job with the gospels.”  I believe as Reformed Baptists we should go with those who are good with the gospels AND get justification right.  Fesko’s book is a helpful antidote to the New Perspective on Paul and its “presbyterian” cousin, the Federal Vision.  Fesko’s point is well stated on pp.235-236, “Justification, therefore, is not about the vindication of the people of God before the world as Wright maintains.  Rather it is about the verdict that God passes upon the person who stands in his presence, the verdict of guilty or innocent.”  Amen and amen.

In chapters 9-11, Fesko treats justification relative to other doctrines in the ordo salutis.  Chapter 9 is an excellent treatment of “Justification and Imputation” where the author deals with all of the relevant texts.  The opponents of imputation (Wright) miss the doctrine in 2 Cor. 5:21 and neglect Rom. 5:17-19 in the discussion of imputation.  Fesko provides thorough exegesis which establishes the biblical foundation for the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to His people.  In chapter 10, Fesko treats “Justification and Union with Christ” and shows the differences between the Lutheran and Reformed view with reference to the placement of union with Christ.  Fesko argues that union with Christ undergirds the entirety of the ordo salutis.  Chapter 11 is an able explanation of the connection between “Justification and Sanctification” with attention given to James 2:14-26 (p.291ff.).

Chapter 12 is intriguing as Fesko deals with “Justification and the Final Judgment.”  He shows that justification does not straddle over the already – not yet, but that “the one declaration of justification in the present is revealed in the future by means of the resurrection” (p.323).  He goes on to say,

“In other words, it is not that justification has two parts, present and future, but rather that it has two levels of publication, the resurrection according to the inner and outer man, or in terms of the ordo      salutis, justification and glorification.  When the believer is justified by faith alone, he is immediately  raised with Christ.”  (323)

The opponents of the biblical doctrine of forensic justification speak of “final justification” or “eschatological justification” which usually means there is a place for our works in the completion of our justification.  Fesko however, maintains “the unity of the parousia—resurrection—final judgment,” and thus “preserves the eschatological nature of justification and that the believer’s righteousness in the present is revealed by the resurrection on the last day” (331).

Chapters 13-15 take up the doctrine of justification relative to the church.  In chapter 13, Fesko explores justification from a pastoral perspective and how it relates to the corporate body, missions, pastoral counseling, and baptism.  I was in agreement with his section on baptism until of course he includes infants.  In explaining baptism relative to infants, Fesko writes,

“This means that when an infant is baptized, the grace exhibited in baptism becomes effectual to his salvation after his justification by faith alone, and his faith is further strengthened as he witnesses others who are baptized.”

It is unfortunate that he cannot have his faith strengthened by witnessing his own baptism.  Chapters 14 and 15 deal with justification and the Romans Catholic church and the Eastern Orthodox church respectively.  Both chapters are very helpful and further demonstrate the need for Protestants to have a biblical and confessional understanding of this great doctrine.

Dr. Fesko has done the church a great service with “Justification:  Understanding the Classic Reformed Doctrine.”  The book has staying power as it deals with an on-going threat to the church of Christ.  Whether the opponents are the Judaizers, the Pelagians, the Roman Catholics, the New Perspective on Paul, or the Federal Vision, the net result is the same:  an attempt is made to distort the truth that in an act of God’s free grace, He pardons all our sins and accepts us as righteous in His sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us and received by faith alone.  Dr. Fesko helps us to respond to the threat.