RECLAIMING THE OLD PATHS: RETRIEVING CLASSICAL THEISM TODAY THROUGH "ALL THAT IS IN GOD"

RECLAIMING THE OLD PATHS: RETRIEVING CLASSICAL THEISM

TODAY THROUGH "ALL THAT IS IN GOD"

By: Daniel McMillin

James E. Dolezal's All That Is In God: Evangelical Theology and the Challenge of Classical Theism is a phenomenal book. Upon reading this book, my understanding of the divine essence intensified, and I came to appreciate classical Christian theism as the most beautiful portrayal of the triune God. His first chapter is an impressive yet short introduction to the modern model of theism among evangelical scholars and by way of their influence on evangelical Christians in general. There is an obvious distinction between classical Christian theism and theistic personalism or theistic mutualism. Theistic personalism proves to be a modern challenge that threatens the God of the Bible. The divine essence has been corrupted and manipulated to be more like humanity than divinity. In an effort to make God more personal and approachable, God’s aseity, immutability, eternity, impassability, and, most importantly, simplicity have been denied or redefined. Classical theism has been neglected and forgotten by evangelicals, and thus many of them are unaware of these doctrines. Many are not fazed by the atrocity that the God portrayed by theistic mutualists is a God who is mutable, emotional, dependent, time-bound, and complex. The modern portrayal of God is not the God of the Bible.

Dolezal then transitions to God’s immutability which appears to be a very prevalent issue among evangelicals. Within this topic, he discusses divine aseity, which in my opinion, I would rather him devote an entire chapter to this attribute rather than use it as an introduction to chapter 2 since aseity was listed as one of six marks of a strong commitment to classical theism. Nonetheless, he adequately defines aseity for seven pages and moves on to divine immutability, the main thrust of the chapter “Unchanging God.” His engagement with the doctrine of divine immutability is impressive as he provides biblical proof for immutability, addresses mutabilist language that refers to God, and engages with theistic mutualist views of an immutable God.

The next two chapters, “Simple God” and “Simple God Lost,” are the center of Dolezal’s book on All That Is In God. Divine simplicity is the heart that beats and gives life to this book. Dolezal sheds light on the classical doctrine of divine simplicity and how evangelicals have lost it. However, it is apparent that he views it as something worth reclaiming. Simplicity is meant to be the way that we understand how God’s attributes relate to one another. Are they merely interacting with one another, or are they identical? He affirms the strong doctrine of divine simplicity that the Patristics, Medieval, and Reformed theologians affirmed. It is proper to speak about God as simple. Simplicity is the “indispensable centerpiece in the ‘grammar’ regulating theology proper.” [1] 

Dolezal gives the proper framework for evangelicals to articulate the divine essence as simple. He begins by giving some basic claims and implications of divine simplicity by showing that God is not composed of parts but instead is identical with His essence and existence. He then engages the biblical basis for affirming divine simplicity as well as the divine attributes that necessitate such a doctrine as this. He engages with biblical texts that discuss God’s independence, infinity, and creation ex nihilo. This provides the reader with everything they need to affirm divine simplicity. Dolezal shows that there truly is a biblical warrant for affirming this doctrine. He then engages with historical witnesses throughout the Patristic, Medieval, and Reformation periods. One of my favorite parts about this book is how Dolezal explains the two models for understanding how God is simply Trinity. Many theologians begin by looking at the Trinity and then engage with the divine attributes, thereby diluting this simple nature. However, this was not how the Church Fathers and many theologians following that conducted themselves when contemplating the Triune God. Instead, “divine simplicity” was the “controlling centerpiece of classical Christian grammar, shaping even the articulation of the Trinity.”[2] First, they began with the divine attributes, namely simplicity, which informed their understanding of the Trinity. I believe this is a major problem with theistic mutualists, which is that they begin in the wrong place.

            In chapter 4, Dolezal reveals the shortcomings of theistic mutualism by way of discussing their understanding of divine simplicity. That is, whether they disregard, deny, or distort the doctrine. Nonetheless, after reading the biblical and historical basis for divine simplicity, it is obvious to the reader that whatever follows from those who oppose the strong doctrine of divine simplicity, they either are disregarding the history that is so prevalent and essential to those theologians that came before us or have ignored the divine attributes and biblical data. Dolezal begins by recognizing that simplicity was something that was assumed to be true for centuries. In fact, before the 18th century, this was something that everybody agreed on whether they were Catholic or Protestant. Divine simplicity was not a doctrine to question or neglect.

Dolezal does a good job explaining the drift away from divine simplicity and representing those who deny this doctrine. He represents the arguments of his opponents very well. However, this chapter does not engage with all scholars who disregard, deny, or distort divine simplicity. Instead, it is an updated rebuttal of his previous book God Without Parts. It is my opinion that his first chapter in that book is more helpful when examining the various views that opposed the strong doctrine of divine simplicity since it is more thorough and engages with more material. Although, I do find this chapter in All That Is In God to be very helpful, especially for those who may not have read God Without Parts because it is more accessible and easier to read.

In chapter 5, Dolezal then discusses how God is the “Eternal Creator.” This chapter defines divine eternity and provides the biblical basis for his eternality. Then it engages the divine essence and provides dogmatic motivations for such a doctrine. These attributes are His infinity, immutability, and simplicity. I found this to be very excellent since these are topics that have already been discussed before this chapter, allowing the reader to apply the divine attributes in their grammar when contemplating the divine essence. Dolezal then engages contemporary concerns with this doctrine by noting the various models of a temporal God: temporal God, timeless-turned-temporal God, and timeless-and-temporal God. In response, he then provides the means for confessing the eternal God as the eternal creator.

Finally, Dolezal discusses how simplicity influences our model of the Trinity in “One God, Three Persons.” He shows that simplicity allows us to affirm that God is one divine essence, three distinct persons. He also shows that theistic mutualists have difficulty confessing the Trinity once they disregard the strong classical doctrine of divine simplicity. It is only when one affirms that God is simple that they may truly be able to say that they are monotheists rather than tritheists. A simple being is, by necessity, one. However, a complex being cannot be one. For that reason, those who deny divine simplicity believe in a composite being, and social trinitarianism follows.

At this point, Dolezal engages the historical confessions of the substantial unity of the Trinity. He then sheds light on the mystery of the Trinity and shows that God is one; he identifies himself as three distinct persons and that these three persons are coequal and coeternal in their divinity. Dolezal does this to show that divine simplicity and the Nicene creed are in harmony with one another. At this point, Dolezal then provides a historical account of a few challenges to the doctrine of the Trinity, namely Sabellianism and Arian subordinationism. He does this to show that the confessions at Nicaea are meant to guard against all heretical views of the Trinity. From there, he discusses the unity of divine being within the Trinity by engaging with the biblical basis for God’s singularity or exclusivity. He then discusses the divine nature and what it means to be God. From there, he engages with the unity of simplicity to show that each person is the exact same God and then discusses the unity of substance. Next, he shows that there is a real distinction among the divine persons. The Father is not the Son or Spirit. The Son is not the Father or Spirit. And the Spirit is not the Father or Son. Dolezal then shows the consequences of a compositional model of trinitarian unity and the various flaws of this model. A complete guide does not work in a trinitarian framework. Thus, we are left with the product of social trinitarianism. Those all represent the origin of and arguments for social trinitarianism and then provide a response. I believe that Dolezal did an excellent job showing that the classical doctrine of divine simplicity is essential to articulate a biblical, pro-Nicene view of the Trinity.

This book has been extremely helpful in my studies of the divine essence and was vital to my research on “Divine Simplicity: Is There a Biblical Warrant for the Thomistic Doctrine?” I would highly recommend this book for those who are being introduced to the doctrine of God, especially if they are writing on simplicity or the Trinity. I believe that James Dolezal properly defended classical Christian theism and gave much for evangelical theologians to think about Dwell upon the divine nature. Finally, this book allows the Christian to affirm that “All That Is In God Is God.”

END NOTES

[1] James E. Dolezal, All That Is In God: Evangelical Theology and the Challenge of Classical Christian Theism (Grand Rapids, MI. Reformation Heritage Books, 2017), 38.

[2] Dolezal, All That Is In God, 52.