Introduction
Reformed Baptist Seminary subscribes to the Second London Baptist Confession (2LBC) as our doctrinal standard. Therefore, we affirm ex animo (from the heart) the doctrine of God as articulated in chapters two and three of our confession. However, there has been a measure of controversy in recent years in modern evangelical theology and even among the Reformed concerning certain aspects of the doctrine of God leading us to believe it is necessary to state in a clear but succinct manner our convictions on matters relevant to these current issues. This document does not attempt to present a full-orbed doctrine of God. Rather the focus is on aspects of the doctrine of God that are particularly relevant to current discussions within reformed and evangelical churches, including matters like divine simplicity and impassibility. This paper is presented in the form of denials and affirmations, including brief explanations, and represents the position of RBS since its founding.
Part One: Denials
Deism
A view that claims God neither reveals Himself to humans through special revelation nor intervenes in the natural order of things; that God can only be known through natural theology, that is, the use of human reason and intuition.
Pantheism
A view that claims God is identical to or identified with the universe; that all is God, and that God is all, thus denying the transcendence of God and refusing to recognize Him as distinct from creation.
Panentheism
The view that claims the universe is part of God and is, therefore, co-eternal with God, but that God is more than the universe.
Process Theology
Adopting a panentheistic view of God, process theology claims that God is in process with the universe of becoming what He is not eternally, such that God is not causally independent of the universe, but that He and the universe are mutually dependent and always changing.
Open Theism
A view that claims God can only know those truths that are logically possible to know. Since future truths that are yet to be true cannot be known, God does not foreknow events that depend on free human decisions that are yet to be made.
Arminianism
A view that claims God’s decree is based on his foreknowledge; that God predestines some sinners unto salvation and eternal life because He foreknows they will believe.
Essential Subordinationism
A view that teaches there exists a relationship of ontological, essential subordination of the Son to the Father or the Spirit to the Father in the immanent Trinity. This is essentially the view of Arianism, which the Council of Nicea (A.D. 325) rejected.
Part Two: Affirmations
Nicene Trinitarianism
That there is only one God. The one God is always one God who exists in three subsistences, or persons, sharing the same essence—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. He is not a monadic God who exists apart from the one and three and the three in one. The three persons are not three parts of God. Neither are the persons merely qualities of God or various modes by which the one God manifests Himself. The Father is God, the Son is God, the Spirit is God, and yet there is but one God. While rejecting essential subordination (see above, denial 7), we affirm that the Son is eternally begotten from the Father and the Spirit eternally proceeds from both the Father and the Son (sometimes called subordination in the modes of subsistence). We also affirm that the three persons may be distinguished in their modes of operation in the one work of the Triune God in creation and redemption (sometimes called subordination in the modes of operation).
Divine Aseity and Creation ex nihilo
That the Triune God is the uncreated, uncaused, and self-sufficient Creator of all things; that God created all things out of nothing, whether visible or invisible.
A Perfect Being
That God is that Being than which nothing greater can be conceived, a Perfect Being who possesses all great-making qualities maximally, and who is, therefore, all-knowing, all-wise, all-powerful, and all-good; that God is infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in His essence, perfections, and purposes.
Divine Sovereignty
That God exercises supreme control over everything that occurs, including the free choices of creatures, without authoring, approving, or applauding evil,[1] and that nothing can hinder him from accomplishing His plan.
Divine Immutability
That God is without change. He is unchangeable, in His being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, love, mercy, kindness, and truth, and in all that is descriptive of God in Scripture. Although immutable in Himself, “He is immanently near to His creatures in all their changes, guiding them personally according to His unchanging will” of purpose.[2] Herman Bavinck said, “Without losing himself, God can give himself, and while absolutely maintaining his immutability, he can enter into an infinite number of relations with his creatures.”[3] In summary,
By affirming divine immutability, we are denying:
That God’s essential nature is subject to change or mutation;
That God’s moral character is subject to change or mutation;
That God’s eternal decree is subject to change or mutation;
By affirming divine immutability, we are confessing:
That God is the same yesterday, today and forever;
That God is absolutely faithful and trustworthy;
That God’s promises are certain and reliable.
Divine Eternity
The Confession describes God as “infinite in being,” “eternal,” and as alone possessing “immortality.”
By affirming divine eternity, we are denying:
That God has a beginning;
That God has an end;
That God is subject to the limitations of temporal succession.
By affirming divine eternity, we are confessing:
That God exists necessarily;
That God transcends time and is Lord of time.
Divine Simplicity
According to 2LCF 2.1, God is “a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions.” The doctrine of divine simplicity is based on the notion that God is “without parts.”
By affirming divine simplicity, we are denying:
That God is composed of physical or metaphysical parts or of pre-existing things.
That God’s properties or attributes exist as “parts” or “building blocks” of God that make up God, as if a portion of God consists of power and another of goodness and another of justice, and so on.
That God has properties/attributes that can exist independent of God or of one another. For example, God does not participate in some abstract quality of “goodness” that exists independent of God. Rather, God’s goodness is uniquely His goodness. In that sense, God’s goodness is coextensive with God Himself.
That God’s perfections are in potency, such that God is in the process of becoming better or worse.
At the same time, the doctrine of divine simplicity does not mean that God is without distinctions.[4] We must avoid three extremes in our confession of divine simplicity. First, the assertion that God is not composed of parts is not a denial of the doctrine of the Trinity. God is not composed of the three persons of the Trinity; however, while they cannot be separated, the three persons of the Trinity must be distinguished. Two, while the attributes of God are not different things which together compose God, neither are they different names for the same thing. While the attributes of God are ways of describing the divine essence and are inseparable from the divine essence, they do describe different qualities of the one divine essence. Three, divine simplicity is not contrary to the clear witness of Scripture concerning the distinction between the decretive (secret) and preceptive (revealed) will of God. While we must maintain that God’s will is simple, this does not mean that vital distinctions in this simple will cannot be made. For example, it would be wrong based on divine simplicity to oppose the equally confessional and biblical doctrine of the free offer of the gospel as set forth in chapter 7, paragraph 2 of 2LBC.
By affirming divine simplicity, we are confessing:
That God is a unity;
That all that is intrinsic to God (i.e., his essence, character, and attributes) is God;
That all God’s properties/attributes are co-extensive, co-essential, and mutually entailing;
That God’s properties/attributes are uniquely His; that God’s goodness is uniquely His goodness; that God’s wisdom is uniquely His wisdom; that God’s power is uniquely His power, and so on.
That God’s perfections are fully actualized, such that God is perfectly good and perfectly just, and He is all that He is unchangeably so.
Divine Impassibility
God is described in the Confession as existing “without passions.” RBS confesses the 2LBC and, therefore, affirms the doctrine of divine impassibility as a seminary. We believe there is a limited range of interpretations of the doctrine that are historically acceptable within classical and Reformed orthodoxy and within the boundaries of the Confession. Within this limited range, we do not believe these differences are matters to divide over for fellowship and cooperation. In fact, these are standard fraternal differences among other Reformed bodies.
In the history of reformed theology “passions” describe that which has its origins ad extra (from outside influence) but affect us on the inside. The term “affections” is often used for that which has its origins ad intra (arising from inside of us) and has effects on the outside of us. Therefore, in Reformed theology “passions” which have their origin ad extra have often been distinguished from “affections” which have their origin ad intra. Understood in this way, it is not uncommon in the history of reformed orthodoxy to affirm that God does not have passions, while not denying that God does have affections.[5] Likewise, to affirm divine impassibility is not to reject a doctrine of divine relationality.[6] Quoting Sam Waldron, “Divine impassibility does not mean that God sustains no relation to or action in the world. Though God does not experience emotional changes because of the world, He does have unchanging affections with regard to things in the world and acts in the world on the basis of those unchanging affections.”[7]
We seriously question the position which understands God’s sovereignty and immutability to imply that God does not have affections at all and that all attributions of affection to God merely reflect different expressions of divine providence showing mercy, punishing sin, etc. We recognize that some prefer to use the term “perfections” as opposed to “affections.” We allow that this is an understanding that falls within the range of historic and sincere attempts by Reformed theologians to reconcile the language of affection in God with God’s immutability.[8]
Another sincere attempt to do so among some Reformed theologians has been to understand God’s affections as real and responsive. “God’s being remains immutable, and His sovereign will still reigns over all” providentially bringing to pass all that He has eternally decreed.[9] Nevertheless, there is still within God responsive affectional dispositions toward His creatures in time as they change in accordance with His foreordained plan.
There is a third view that is most acceptable, it seems, to most within the Reformed tradition, and RBS endorses it as sound and credible. Here we quote from Joel Beeke and Paul Smalley in volume one of their systematic theology:
We propose that Christians should affirm God’s affections in a manner suitable to his absolute sovereignty and immutability. Richard Muller writes of Reformed orthodoxy, “The exclusion of ‘passions’ from the divine being never implied the absence of ‘affections.’ Antonius Thysius wrote in the Leiden Synopsis of “God’s good affections (which in human beings are the passions),” saying that they are, “nothing other than God’s ardent will towards us, and its power and effect in creatures.” The word ardent (Latin ardens) means ‘burning, fiery, hot,’ communicating the vigorous love and zealous righteousness that energizes God’s will. Edward Leigh said, “Under God’s will are comprehended affections,” which are “diverse motions of his will,” not sudden and vehement perturbations of God as they are in man…but constant, fixed, tranquil, and eternal acts and inclinations of the will, according to the different nature of things.” Not only did Leigh ascribe affection to God, but he said that in a sense his affections are greater and more stable than ours: “There are in man some habitual and perpetual affections as love and hatred; much more hath the eternal will of God eternal affections…God hates evil, and loves good.” Therefore, though these scholars identified God’s inward affections with His will, it is an affectionate will. Yet it is also God’s eternal will, which means God’s affections are immutable.[10]
Again, there is mystery in understanding how God is affectionate and yet immutable, and Reformed theologians have not always agreed on the best way to understand and express the impassibility of God. However, while we must, on the one hand, uphold the absoluteness and immutability of God, on the other hand, we must affirm with Scripture and our Confession that He is most loving, kind, merciful, just, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness. Though God’s affections are unfluctuating, stable, and absolute, the Bible consistently teaches that God does relate to His creatures in terms of love, goodness, mercy, kindness, justice, and wrath. We must be careful in our efforts to reconcile these realities so that, while attempting to guard against a false and hyper-immanence view of God, we do not fall into the ditch of a false and hyper-transcendent view of God. Though God does not have fluctuating and passible human affections, there is an analogous relationship between divine and human affections. God is indeed eternally, supremely, and ardently affectionate and yet absolutely sovereign, independent, and immutable. Quoting Beeke and Smalley again,
The advantage of retaining the term affections is that we then reflect the language of the Holy Scriptures for God’s moral perfections: love, joy, hatred, wrath, pity, and so forth. We avoid giving the false impression that God is impersonal and aloof from relationships---which no Christian theologian desires to communicate.[11]
In summary,
By affirming divine impassibility, we are denying:
That God’s affections are physical in nature;
That God’s affections are irrational impulses or responses;
That God’s affections have their ultimate source in states of affairs that are external to God; that anything outside of God can constrain God’s attitudes or coerce His actions;[12]
By affirming divine impassibility, we are confessing:
That’s God’s affections are perfectly rational;
That God’s affections are pure and holy;
That God’s affections are inherent virtues and perfections;
That God can truly relate and respond to the world He created.
Conclusion
Having made these denials and affirmations, we express our desire to be charitable, knowing that words have limits in expressing such glorious and oft-times mysterious truths. We acknowledge that throughout the history of the classical and Reformed doctrine of God, there has not always been a monolithic uniformity of conception and expression with respect to every detail. For example, the Cappadocian Fathers, Thomas Aquinas, and Duns Scotus advocated slightly different versions of divine simplicity.[13] Regarding divine impassibility, as mentioned above, some theologians in the classical and Reformed tradition negate both passions and affections in God,[14] whereas others negate passions but affirm affections.[15]
The RBS board wishes to be careful not to be overly narrow by going beyond what is required by our Confession in what we expect from our faculty and confess as a seminary. First, we recognize there have been minor differences historically as just referenced. Second, the Confession’s formulation of these doctrines is quite succinct, clear, direct, and simple. Third, occasionally more narrow formulations rely heavily on philosophical speculation in the absence of clear support from Scripture. Of course, we recognize the role of philosophy as a handmaid of theology, but we do not believe it is necessary to confess what is not explicitly or implicitly contained in Scripture or expressed in our Confession of Faith.
Endnotes
[1] Some of these ideas for expressing this are drawn from James Anderson’s article “Calvinism and the First Sin,” in Calvinism and the Problem of Evil, ed. David E. Alexander and Daniel M. Johnson (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2016), 200–32.
[2] Joel Beeke and Paul Smalley, Revelation and God, vol. 1 of Reformed Systematic Theology, Volume One (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Press, 2019), 706.
[3] Herman Bavinck, God and Creation, vol. 2 of Reformed Dogmatics, trans. John Vriend, ed. John Bolt (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 158.
[4] Much of this paragraph is drawn and adapted from Dr. Sam Waldron’s very helpful exposition of this subject in A New Exposition of The London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689, ed. Robert Ventura, (Geanies House, Fearn, Ross-shire: Scotland, Great Britain, 2022), 67–68.
[5] Richard Muller, The Divine Essence and Attributes, vol. 3 of Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2003), 554.
[6] Ibid. 360. Waldron quotes Muller’s commenting on this, “This understanding of the divine affections as movements or attractions in some sense defined by their external object is a significant element of Reformed orthodox system, both in terms of the implication of the concept for the orthodox theology as a whole and in view of the frequently heard claim that the older theology was so caught up in the Aristotelian conceptuality of God as Unmoved Mover that it paid scant attention to the biblical language of God in relation to his world. Quite the contrary, the orthodox doctrine of the divine essence presses out into the rest of the theological system with the assumption of attributes requiring external objects and capable of being understood only insofar as they are relations ad extra.”
[7] Ibid. 70. The entire paragraph preceding this quote draws from Waldron’s excellent summary of the doctrine of Divine impassibility on pages 68–73.
[8] The summary of this view and the two positions that follow are adapted from Beeke and Smalley, Revelation and God, 841–844. They describe these three perspectives as, “sincere attempts by Reformed and evangelical theologians to understand the Holy Scriptures, respectfully listen to the orthodox Christian tradition, and find solutions that glorify God and edify human beings.” However, they express their own personal agreement with the third perspective.
[9] Ibid. 841.
[10] Revelation and God, 842–43.
[11] Ibid, 843.
[12] We do not believe this denial requires us to deny that God may genuinely respond to states of affairs in the world or that he may genuinely have felt mental states that correspond appropriately to cognitive-ethical assessments of states of affairs.
[13] They mainly differ over the nature of distinctions in the Godhead, with the Cappadocians allowing for something closer to real distinctions, Thomas arguing for virtual distinctions, and Scotus advocating formal distinctions. For a helpful summary of these three versions of the DDS and an analysis of how they integrate with the doctrine of the Trinity, see Thomas H. McCall, “Trinity Doctrine, Plain and Simple,” Advancing Trinitarian Theology, ed. Oliver Crisp and Fred Sanders (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014), 42–59. For a broader account of the doctrine’s development throughout church history, see Thomas Joseph White, O.P., “Divine Simplicity” (Nov 16, 2022), St. Andrews Encyclopedia of Theology, accessed May 5, 2023: https://www.saet.ac.uk/Christianity/DivineSimplicity#section3.1.
[14] John Owen, Vindiciae Evangelicae, in vol. 12 of The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Gould (1850–53; reprint, Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1966), 108–15; Stephen Charnock, Discourses upon the Existence and Attributes of God, 2 volumes (1858; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), 1:340–45; Samuel D. Renihan, Deity & Decree (Self-published, 2020), 53–56.
[15] John Howe, The Works of the Reverend John Howe (1848; Reprint, Ligonier, PA: Soli Deo Gloria, 1990), 2.359; Benjamin Keach, Tropologia: A Key to Open Scripture Metaphors (London: William Hill Collingridge, 1858), 48–50; Beeke and Smalley, Revelation & God, 829–875.