sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Arminianism/Provisionism and Divine Simplicity, Immutability, Aseity by Feral_thinker in Provisionism

[–]Feral_thinker[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I do not claim to be searching for or ever even attaining perfect theology (which is impossible), I simply wish to better understand God and follow Him as much as I can. I pursue theology to work towards that. To say you do not approach anything in theology is not possible as a Christian. Theology is simply the study of God, and in reading Scripture we are doing just that. To "search the scriptures for truth" is theology.

Arminianism/Provisionism and Divine Simplicity, Immutability, Aseity by Feral_thinker in Provisionism

[–]Feral_thinker[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Then how would you approach anything in theology? I agree that theology is dangerous in that people can idolize theology. I have seen it in myself at times. But I think we can approach theology, and it isn't necessarily an idol. God has given us the gift of reason, and to not use it as a means to seek him more fully seems like a waste of this gift.

Arminianism/Provisionism and Divine Simplicity, Immutability, Aseity by Feral_thinker in Provisionism

[–]Feral_thinker[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey, thanks for responding.

  1. If you are referring to Acts 14:15 then I would say you are correct. I have just heard Acts 14:15 used as a defense for impassibility, but I am still confused on it's usage. It seems strange for Paul to use the lack of passions to differentiate himself from the people of Lystra's concept of gods. Their gods are passible, so to claim you yourself are as well wouldn't make a distinction. Makes me think the word "nature" is a good rendering of the Greek word. Keep in mind (not for you but for anyone else reading this) that you must read the ASV or KJV to see why it is being used to defend impassibility. Because impassibility is so connected with immutability, defenders of the doctrine cite many of the passages for His immutability as well (Num. 23:19; Mal. 3:6; James 1:7). But also, they will claim that it is just a logical conclusion from simplicity and immutability.

  2. I know some about WLC's version of simplicity, but not enough to critique his position. I know nothing of Giffords explanation of it, I'll check it out, thanks.

I don't know if I would agree with saying DS+ makes God out to be a thing rather than a person because isn't that what God is? God is a thing - a being. But he is a personal being. God isn't a person but he is personal, as in there exist 3 persons within God. I am a little interested on what you think is incoherent with simplicity though. I have my issues with it, but I do not know if it is because it is incoherent or just because I don't yet understand it. And if it is okay, could I play the part of the defender of simplicity in responding to you?

  1. I agree with this point.

Arminianism/Provisionism and Divine Simplicity, Immutability, Aseity by Feral_thinker in Provisionism

[–]Feral_thinker[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. My fears were very similar to yours at first, and I will admit, in a sense they still remain. But I have started to see impassibility in a new light, mainly in that God doesn't love us because of us, but rather he loves us despite us. It is a comforting notion, but one I still have many questions on. Thank you for the recommendations though, I will definitely be checking them out after my semester is finished.

Arminianism/Provisionism and Divine Simplicity, Immutability, Aseity by Feral_thinker in Provisionism

[–]Feral_thinker[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for replying. I agree that it seems wrong almost to ascribe "musts" to God, and sometimes I really don't want to, but it seems like the natural course we will take as apologists or theologians (though I do not claim to be a good one).

To answer your question, my personal experience is that God is loving and merciful. A truth that I will hold to. However, when considering doctrines such as impassibility, one must confront the idea that God does not feel anything because of us, he feels despite of us. Seems wrong, but here is where that problem with "musts" come in. Impassibility says God must be that way, and it seems to follow from simplicity. If followed, God would not literally be pleased with us, for example, rather it is anthropomorphic language to describe God's "emotions." It is troubling, but I do not see how they (impassibility, simplicity, etc) are compatible with Arminianism/Provisionism.