What do you think?
Rate this book
Spectrum Multiview
Divine Impassibility: Four Views of God's Emotions and Suffering
Does God suffer? Does God experience emotions? Does God change?
How should we interpret passages of Scripture that seem to support one view or the other? And where does the incarnation and Christ's suffering on the cross fit into this?
This Spectrum Multiview volume brings together four theologians with decidedly different answers to these questions. The contributors make a case for their own view--ranging from a traditional affirmation of divine impassibility (the idea that God does not suffer) to the position that God is necessarily and intimately affected by creation--and then each contributor responds to the others' views.
The lively but irenic discussion that takes place in this conversation demonstrates not only the diversity of opinion among Christians on this theological conundrum but also its ongoing relevance for today.
Views and Contributors:
• Strong Impassibility (James E. Dolezal, assistant professor in the School of Divinity at Cairn University)
• Qualified Impassibility (Daniel Castelo, professor of dogmatic and constructive theology at Seattle Pacific University)
• Qualified Passibility (John C. Peckham, professor of theology and Christian philosophy at Andrews University)
• Strong Passibility (Thomas Jay Oord, professor of theology and philosophy at Northwest Nazarene University
How should we interpret passages of Scripture that seem to support one view or the other? And where does the incarnation and Christ's suffering on the cross fit into this?
This Spectrum Multiview volume brings together four theologians with decidedly different answers to these questions. The contributors make a case for their own view--ranging from a traditional affirmation of divine impassibility (the idea that God does not suffer) to the position that God is necessarily and intimately affected by creation--and then each contributor responds to the others' views.
The lively but irenic discussion that takes place in this conversation demonstrates not only the diversity of opinion among Christians on this theological conundrum but also its ongoing relevance for today.
Views and Contributors:
• Strong Impassibility (James E. Dolezal, assistant professor in the School of Divinity at Cairn University)
• Qualified Impassibility (Daniel Castelo, professor of dogmatic and constructive theology at Seattle Pacific University)
• Qualified Passibility (John C. Peckham, professor of theology and Christian philosophy at Andrews University)
• Strong Passibility (Thomas Jay Oord, professor of theology and philosophy at Northwest Nazarene University
202 pages, Paperback
Published August 13, 2019
20 people are currently reading
144 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
December 3, 2019
Summary: A discussion of God's experience of emotions and the possibility of God suffering with views ranging from one of God not changing or experiencing emotion to God, while not changing in nature, is in relation with his creatures and experiences emotions and suffering in those relationships.
Doesn't God hear our cries and feel the pain his people suffer? Many of us would say, "of course," not realizing that many throughout church history may have differed with us. The assertion is that God is impassible, which means that God is not able to suffer or experience pain or pleasure from the acts of others. One may wonder, "why would anyone believe that?" There are actually good reasons. If we believe that God is self-existent, and not dependent upon anything else in the universe for God's existence, then the possibility that the acts or suffering of others could affect God would seem to jeopardize the idea of God's self-existence in recognizing the possibility that other beings may influence or change God in some way.
In this work, a spectrum of four views are considered: strong impassibility (James E Dolezal), qualified impassibility (Daniel Castelo), qualified passibility (John C. Peckham), and strong passibility (Thomas Jay Oord). Each proponent sets forth the basic ideas of their particular view and arguments that support, the other three respond from their perspective, and the proponent makes a final response.
One of the most helpful aspects of this book are the four questions the editors ask each person to respond to. These are:
1. To what extent is God's emotional life analogous (similar and dissimilar) to the human emotional life?
2. Are God's nature, will, and knowledge passible, and to what extent?
3. Do the incarnation and passion of Jesus Christ necessitate passibility?
4. Does human activity (such as prayer) occasion an emotive/volitional response from God?
The introduction to the book provides a chart with summary answers to each question, showing in brief the places where the four views agree and differ. Basically, the strong impassible position would answer all of these "no," while the strong passible position would answer all of these yes.
The qualified positions would answer "no" in some cases, a qualified "yes" or "yes" in others, and hence "qualified." One thing that separates the qualified impassible from the qualified passible is the question of "are God's nature, will, and knowledge passible, and to what extent. The qualified impassible would say only God's nature is passible, and that only to the extent God allows. The qualified passible would say both God's nature and will are passible, but not God's knowledge--that God is voluntarily passible in relation to the world. They also differ on whether and to what extent the human and divine natures of Christ are passible. The qualified impassible would say this is so only temporarily during the incarnation in the context of an impassible God. The qualified passible would say the incarnation reveals both a passible Christ in both natures and a passible God. They would also differ as to whether God is affected by prayer, no, for the qualified impassible along with the strong impassible, yes for the qualified passible along with the strong passible.
It is thus harder to distinguish the qualified positions from each other, while the differences between the "strong" positions are clear. The strong impassible position seems most shaped by extra-biblical theological categories--God's self-existence and actuality, and the logic of these means a refusal to take passages that speak of God's emotions, or God "changing" in response to human acts or pleas at face value. For others, definitional issues and how language is used seems important, and I found myself wondering how this might be worked out if not framed in an impassibility/passibility binary, or dividing God into nature, will, and knowledge as if these are not part of an integral whole.
It does helpfully press the ways in which Creator and creatures are like and unlike. It seems critically important to ask how we are like and unlike God rather than the reverse, which we often do. But this begs the question of both relational and emotional capacities. If our capacities in this regard reflect (albeit in fallen ways) what it is like to be in the image of God, they must find their source in something in the nature of God. How then does a strongly impassible God create passible creatures?
This work is valuable in thinking through our thoughts of God and his relation to his world beyond our sentiments. The thoughtful and yet respectful responses of the participants model good dialogue practices one wishes were more widely evident among Christians who differ. They also respect each other's commitment to orthodoxy and a high view of scripture. For both the content and the character of the discussion, this book is worth a read.
________________________________
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher. The opinions I have expressed are my own.
Doesn't God hear our cries and feel the pain his people suffer? Many of us would say, "of course," not realizing that many throughout church history may have differed with us. The assertion is that God is impassible, which means that God is not able to suffer or experience pain or pleasure from the acts of others. One may wonder, "why would anyone believe that?" There are actually good reasons. If we believe that God is self-existent, and not dependent upon anything else in the universe for God's existence, then the possibility that the acts or suffering of others could affect God would seem to jeopardize the idea of God's self-existence in recognizing the possibility that other beings may influence or change God in some way.
In this work, a spectrum of four views are considered: strong impassibility (James E Dolezal), qualified impassibility (Daniel Castelo), qualified passibility (John C. Peckham), and strong passibility (Thomas Jay Oord). Each proponent sets forth the basic ideas of their particular view and arguments that support, the other three respond from their perspective, and the proponent makes a final response.
One of the most helpful aspects of this book are the four questions the editors ask each person to respond to. These are:
1. To what extent is God's emotional life analogous (similar and dissimilar) to the human emotional life?
2. Are God's nature, will, and knowledge passible, and to what extent?
3. Do the incarnation and passion of Jesus Christ necessitate passibility?
4. Does human activity (such as prayer) occasion an emotive/volitional response from God?
The introduction to the book provides a chart with summary answers to each question, showing in brief the places where the four views agree and differ. Basically, the strong impassible position would answer all of these "no," while the strong passible position would answer all of these yes.
The qualified positions would answer "no" in some cases, a qualified "yes" or "yes" in others, and hence "qualified." One thing that separates the qualified impassible from the qualified passible is the question of "are God's nature, will, and knowledge passible, and to what extent. The qualified impassible would say only God's nature is passible, and that only to the extent God allows. The qualified passible would say both God's nature and will are passible, but not God's knowledge--that God is voluntarily passible in relation to the world. They also differ on whether and to what extent the human and divine natures of Christ are passible. The qualified impassible would say this is so only temporarily during the incarnation in the context of an impassible God. The qualified passible would say the incarnation reveals both a passible Christ in both natures and a passible God. They would also differ as to whether God is affected by prayer, no, for the qualified impassible along with the strong impassible, yes for the qualified passible along with the strong passible.
It is thus harder to distinguish the qualified positions from each other, while the differences between the "strong" positions are clear. The strong impassible position seems most shaped by extra-biblical theological categories--God's self-existence and actuality, and the logic of these means a refusal to take passages that speak of God's emotions, or God "changing" in response to human acts or pleas at face value. For others, definitional issues and how language is used seems important, and I found myself wondering how this might be worked out if not framed in an impassibility/passibility binary, or dividing God into nature, will, and knowledge as if these are not part of an integral whole.
It does helpfully press the ways in which Creator and creatures are like and unlike. It seems critically important to ask how we are like and unlike God rather than the reverse, which we often do. But this begs the question of both relational and emotional capacities. If our capacities in this regard reflect (albeit in fallen ways) what it is like to be in the image of God, they must find their source in something in the nature of God. How then does a strongly impassible God create passible creatures?
This work is valuable in thinking through our thoughts of God and his relation to his world beyond our sentiments. The thoughtful and yet respectful responses of the participants model good dialogue practices one wishes were more widely evident among Christians who differ. They also respect each other's commitment to orthodoxy and a high view of scripture. For both the content and the character of the discussion, this book is worth a read.
________________________________
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher. The opinions I have expressed are my own.
November 19, 2020
Really well put together primer to this issue. I appreciated how the editors framed and focused the issue. I liked how the writer of the original essay responds to the responses as well. Other multi-view books I've read don't do this, but this was a pretty valuable feature.
I found Dolezal to be the most compelling. He presents a philosophically rigorous presentation of the central issues. He is rather light on biblical exegesis and engagement with how the incarnation affects our understanding of impassibility. I think his take on this latter point was the weakest part of his presentation. I also wonder with some of the other contributors why we should operate with Dolezal's Thomistic metaphysics and not some other metaphysics. He seems to just assume the legitimacy of this system.
Castelo was very interesting and made several excellent points, however I was utterly mystified by what he was getting at. Castelo almost seemed to refuse to play the game and construct a theology of impassibility. He seems more interested in other things and this made his contribution rather confusing.
Peckham was very clear, consistent, and provided some of the best biblical arguments. I found that I agreed however with much of Dolezal's criticisms of Peckham. I think in particular Peckham is weak in showing how exactly divine emotions/passions are different from human emotions/passions. He argues that they are different in that God is morally perfect and the like, but I found that every difference that he referenced would also be true for a morally perfect human. Thus, I wasn't sure what made God's passions fundamentally different from creaturely passions.
Oord is a clown. He makes strawman arguments left and right. He engages in logical sleights of hand and seems to not understand the basic definitions of words nor be able to read the scriptures or his opponents. He has so many assumptions that he straight-up refuses to defend. He actually says these assumptions are self-evident. Namely, Oord seems to assume that God's love and relationality must be the same as the love and relationality shared between creatures. Yet of course he claims he maintains the creator-creature distinction. I have no idea how. His arguments about God eternally creating his creation rather than creating ex nihilo sound more like Mormonism than Christianity. I don't say this lightly, but either I'm severely misunderstanding Oord or he's an actual heretic. I hope it's the former, but I fear it's the latter.
All in all, Dolezal and Peckham were really helpful. I could've done without Castelo and Oord. I also wonder whether it was necessary to have four different views. I feel like three views may have been sufficient.
I found Dolezal to be the most compelling. He presents a philosophically rigorous presentation of the central issues. He is rather light on biblical exegesis and engagement with how the incarnation affects our understanding of impassibility. I think his take on this latter point was the weakest part of his presentation. I also wonder with some of the other contributors why we should operate with Dolezal's Thomistic metaphysics and not some other metaphysics. He seems to just assume the legitimacy of this system.
Castelo was very interesting and made several excellent points, however I was utterly mystified by what he was getting at. Castelo almost seemed to refuse to play the game and construct a theology of impassibility. He seems more interested in other things and this made his contribution rather confusing.
Peckham was very clear, consistent, and provided some of the best biblical arguments. I found that I agreed however with much of Dolezal's criticisms of Peckham. I think in particular Peckham is weak in showing how exactly divine emotions/passions are different from human emotions/passions. He argues that they are different in that God is morally perfect and the like, but I found that every difference that he referenced would also be true for a morally perfect human. Thus, I wasn't sure what made God's passions fundamentally different from creaturely passions.
Oord is a clown. He makes strawman arguments left and right. He engages in logical sleights of hand and seems to not understand the basic definitions of words nor be able to read the scriptures or his opponents. He has so many assumptions that he straight-up refuses to defend. He actually says these assumptions are self-evident. Namely, Oord seems to assume that God's love and relationality must be the same as the love and relationality shared between creatures. Yet of course he claims he maintains the creator-creature distinction. I have no idea how. His arguments about God eternally creating his creation rather than creating ex nihilo sound more like Mormonism than Christianity. I don't say this lightly, but either I'm severely misunderstanding Oord or he's an actual heretic. I hope it's the former, but I fear it's the latter.
All in all, Dolezal and Peckham were really helpful. I could've done without Castelo and Oord. I also wonder whether it was necessary to have four different views. I feel like three views may have been sufficient.
October 1, 2019
Review soon.
April 8, 2024
"Divine Impassibility" is stands as a monumental contribution to theological scholarship, fundamentally altering my perception of the Divine. This book, undoubtedly one of the most meticulously researched and profound academic works of our time, ventures into the depths of understanding God's capacity for emotion and changelessness, presenting a compelling argument that challenges conventional beliefs.
The authors navigate this complex theological concept with exceptional clarity, making a case that is both intellectually rigorous and deeply enriching. Their examination of scriptural texts, historical theological debates, and philosophical arguments is not only comprehensive but also accessible, bridging the gap between scholarly discourse and lay understanding.
"Divine Impassibility" revolutionized my view of God, transforming my spiritual landscape. The authors articulate a vision of God that preserves divine transcendence and immanence, balancing God's unchangeability with the reality of a dynamic relationship with creation. This book is an invaluable resource for anyone seeking a deeper theological understanding and a richer, more nuanced faith. It's a masterpiece that invites readers into a profound journey towards comprehending the nature of the Divine, making it a must-read for theologians, scholars, and seekers alike. As an AI, I cannot write any personal comments.
The authors navigate this complex theological concept with exceptional clarity, making a case that is both intellectually rigorous and deeply enriching. Their examination of scriptural texts, historical theological debates, and philosophical arguments is not only comprehensive but also accessible, bridging the gap between scholarly discourse and lay understanding.
"Divine Impassibility" revolutionized my view of God, transforming my spiritual landscape. The authors articulate a vision of God that preserves divine transcendence and immanence, balancing God's unchangeability with the reality of a dynamic relationship with creation. This book is an invaluable resource for anyone seeking a deeper theological understanding and a richer, more nuanced faith. It's a masterpiece that invites readers into a profound journey towards comprehending the nature of the Divine, making it a must-read for theologians, scholars, and seekers alike. As an AI, I cannot write any personal comments.
August 28, 2021
Fun series that I will read more of in the future.
November 25, 2023
Read as research for a seminary paper on impassibility.
“Impassibility” is the idea that God is unaffected by the creation (some people think of it as God having no emotions). Passibility is the opposite: in some way God is affected or responds to creation.
My ranking of the 4 views (even though I’m not 100% on any of them):
🏆Qualified passibility
🥈Qualified impassibility
🥉Strong passibility
❌Strong impassibility
___
My ⭐️ rating criteria
- ⭐️: I absolutely did not like or totally disagreed with the book and would recommend that no one else read it
- ⭐️⭐️: the book was below average style or content, wouldn’t read it again, but wouldn’t beg people not to read it necessarily
- ⭐️⭐️⭐️: a fine book, some helpful information (or a decent story, for the handful of novels I read), didn’t disagree with too much, enjoyed it decently well
- ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️: a very good book, information was very helpful, mostly agreed with everything or it was a strong argument even if I disagree, was above-average enjoyable to read
- ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️: life-changing book, I enjoyed it more than most other books, I want to read it again in the future, I will be telling everyone to read it for the next few weeks
“Impassibility” is the idea that God is unaffected by the creation (some people think of it as God having no emotions). Passibility is the opposite: in some way God is affected or responds to creation.
My ranking of the 4 views (even though I’m not 100% on any of them):
🏆Qualified passibility
🥈Qualified impassibility
🥉Strong passibility
❌Strong impassibility
___
My ⭐️ rating criteria
- ⭐️: I absolutely did not like or totally disagreed with the book and would recommend that no one else read it
- ⭐️⭐️: the book was below average style or content, wouldn’t read it again, but wouldn’t beg people not to read it necessarily
- ⭐️⭐️⭐️: a fine book, some helpful information (or a decent story, for the handful of novels I read), didn’t disagree with too much, enjoyed it decently well
- ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️: a very good book, information was very helpful, mostly agreed with everything or it was a strong argument even if I disagree, was above-average enjoyable to read
- ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️: life-changing book, I enjoyed it more than most other books, I want to read it again in the future, I will be telling everyone to read it for the next few weeks
August 15, 2019
Wonderful interactions between these four authors revealing what’s at stake in attributing “suffering” to God in relation to creatures. The content may seem esoteric to lay people. But it seems that most people already have intuitions about this stuff in their pictures of God and in the way they relate to him; even if they haven’t thought deeply about how Jesus’ suffering on the cross relates to whether or how God experiences suffering as a result of our actions, they already relate to God with some assumptions about his character.
I was somewhat familiar with the views of Dolezal and Oord going into the reading and was unsurprised with their thoughts. The mediating positions were helpful to hear! It was very helpful to see how all the aspects are connected...I remain most unconvinced of Dolezal’s position, but the other 3 have me thinking...
I was somewhat familiar with the views of Dolezal and Oord going into the reading and was unsurprised with their thoughts. The mediating positions were helpful to hear! It was very helpful to see how all the aspects are connected...I remain most unconvinced of Dolezal’s position, but the other 3 have me thinking...
August 23, 2019
On rounding the corner in the hallway, I came on a huddle of men deep in the middle of a conversation. At first, there would pop up snatches of words from their muffled chatter until I finally came up close and could hear more clearly. That’s when I quickly realized they were deep in the middle of a technical discussion, using important guild language they all easily understood. It took some time to catch up to speed and get into the dialog. Something like this is how I felt as I dove into the 200 page softback “Divine Impassibility: Four Views of God’s Emotions and Suffering” edited and refereed by Robert J. Matz, assistant director of online studies and institutional effectiveness and assistant professor of Christian studies at Midwestern Baptist , Seminary and A. Chadwick Thornhill, chair of theological studies for Liberty University School of Divinity and an assistant professor of apologetics and biblical studies. The main participants – who appear to have been in this conversation before the book was compiled – are James E. Dolezal, Daniel Castelo, James C. Peckham, and Thomas Jay Oord. This little volume is part of the Spectrum Multiview Series put out by IVP Academic.
The format is straightforward. Each author espouses one of four view: (1) the strong view that God is impassible (without passions) - Dolezal; (2) the qualified view of divine impassibility – Castelo; (3) the qualified view that God is passible (with passions) – Peckham; and (4) the strong view of divine passibility – Oord. Each contestant enters the ring by himself to exhibit his skill, dexterity, density and speed. The other contenders sit outside the ropes to give their impressions and evaluations at the end of the round, with one last opportunity to clean up his moves handed over to the main competitor. It’s a very simple and useful approach.
The central issue has to do with God’s emotional life. Is God the unmoved mover, unaffected emotionally by his creatures, untouched by evil, free of all suffering (Dolezal)? Maybe God is unable to be affected by external forces and conditions against his will but can will to be affected (Costelo). Then again, it might be that God voluntarily chooses to feel and suffer with his creation, while the Creator-creature distinction is maintained, and God’s nature remains unchanged and unchallenged (Peckham). Or has God, who is love, become necessarily vulnerable to his creatures, affected by the give-and-take of relationship (Oord)?
A reader can find themselves getting dazed by the language of precision in places; stunned by a few heavy guild words (anthropomorphic, anthropopathic, theopathic, apophatic, etc.); and bemused by a few, finely nuanced explanations. But in the end, even if one is not won over to this or that position, you will find that the book has raised some important questions, and the contenders have toiled hard to persuade. As the last round closed, I would say that none of the contestants won the match. I was shocked by the conclusions Oord made that seem to get too close to a god swaddled in circumstances and situations, who could potentially be just as helpless as his creatures, “Creation makes an impact on God’s experience. Consequentially, a relational God is affected by what creatures do” (130). I was also given much to think about by Dolezal, Costelo and Peckham regarding what we Christians mean that God is immutable, and loving, etc.
“Divine Impassibility” is a thought-provoking volume. It will help a reader to begin to ask better questions of God’s self-revelation, such as when God says, “I have been broken over (Israel’s) whoring heart that has departed from me” (Ezekiel 6.9). Even though it is a bit technical, I think perceptive readers will be able to follow and digest the contents. I recommend the book.
My thanks to IVP Academic for sending the book, on my request, used for this review. As always, they never made any stipulations on me, other than that I present my own analysis. Therefore, the evaluation given heretofore is my own, provided without my being under any duress.
The format is straightforward. Each author espouses one of four view: (1) the strong view that God is impassible (without passions) - Dolezal; (2) the qualified view of divine impassibility – Castelo; (3) the qualified view that God is passible (with passions) – Peckham; and (4) the strong view of divine passibility – Oord. Each contestant enters the ring by himself to exhibit his skill, dexterity, density and speed. The other contenders sit outside the ropes to give their impressions and evaluations at the end of the round, with one last opportunity to clean up his moves handed over to the main competitor. It’s a very simple and useful approach.
The central issue has to do with God’s emotional life. Is God the unmoved mover, unaffected emotionally by his creatures, untouched by evil, free of all suffering (Dolezal)? Maybe God is unable to be affected by external forces and conditions against his will but can will to be affected (Costelo). Then again, it might be that God voluntarily chooses to feel and suffer with his creation, while the Creator-creature distinction is maintained, and God’s nature remains unchanged and unchallenged (Peckham). Or has God, who is love, become necessarily vulnerable to his creatures, affected by the give-and-take of relationship (Oord)?
A reader can find themselves getting dazed by the language of precision in places; stunned by a few heavy guild words (anthropomorphic, anthropopathic, theopathic, apophatic, etc.); and bemused by a few, finely nuanced explanations. But in the end, even if one is not won over to this or that position, you will find that the book has raised some important questions, and the contenders have toiled hard to persuade. As the last round closed, I would say that none of the contestants won the match. I was shocked by the conclusions Oord made that seem to get too close to a god swaddled in circumstances and situations, who could potentially be just as helpless as his creatures, “Creation makes an impact on God’s experience. Consequentially, a relational God is affected by what creatures do” (130). I was also given much to think about by Dolezal, Costelo and Peckham regarding what we Christians mean that God is immutable, and loving, etc.
“Divine Impassibility” is a thought-provoking volume. It will help a reader to begin to ask better questions of God’s self-revelation, such as when God says, “I have been broken over (Israel’s) whoring heart that has departed from me” (Ezekiel 6.9). Even though it is a bit technical, I think perceptive readers will be able to follow and digest the contents. I recommend the book.
My thanks to IVP Academic for sending the book, on my request, used for this review. As always, they never made any stipulations on me, other than that I present my own analysis. Therefore, the evaluation given heretofore is my own, provided without my being under any duress.
September 3, 2020
In what has been a renaissance in regards to theology proper this title helps capture the main positions on the issue of impassibility in evangelical circles. This title also helps to demonstrate the importance and implications of the various views held in regards to impassibility. It follows the same layout as other titles in the series where one contributor will present their position and then the other contributors provide their rebuttal.
The first contributor James Dolezal has written one of the best books on classical Christian theism entitled All That is in God, and in this work he has contributed a strong defense of strong impassibility. Daniel Castello seems to try to find a middle road in regards to passibility and impassibility but in my opinion falls short of making a compelling or biblical argument. John Peckham and Thomas Oord ultimately argued for a view of passibility that puts forward the diminished view of God that is central to open theism.
Dolezal’s chapter and responses are worth the price of the book. In a time where it seems many evangelicals are deviating from historic orthodoxy this book was helpful for me in understanding another side of evangelicalism that I don’t have a lot of direct interaction with.
Disclosure I received a review copy of the book from the publisher for the purpose of reviewing it. The opinions I have expressed are my own, and I was not required to write a positive review.
The first contributor James Dolezal has written one of the best books on classical Christian theism entitled All That is in God, and in this work he has contributed a strong defense of strong impassibility. Daniel Castello seems to try to find a middle road in regards to passibility and impassibility but in my opinion falls short of making a compelling or biblical argument. John Peckham and Thomas Oord ultimately argued for a view of passibility that puts forward the diminished view of God that is central to open theism.
Dolezal’s chapter and responses are worth the price of the book. In a time where it seems many evangelicals are deviating from historic orthodoxy this book was helpful for me in understanding another side of evangelicalism that I don’t have a lot of direct interaction with.
Disclosure I received a review copy of the book from the publisher for the purpose of reviewing it. The opinions I have expressed are my own, and I was not required to write a positive review.
Read
January 27, 2024This is definitely one of, if not the best, multi-view books I've read. With a few exceptions (mainly Dolezal) the tone is one of theological generosity which is often missing in much theological discourse, especially over such difficult issues.
Overall, while I want to hold and affirm a form of impassibility I find Dolezal remarkable unclear and unhelpful. His lack of engagement with the biblical text is a problem. One must not simply assume that a historical position is biblical, but to show from the Bible that it is! And one of my biggest take-a-ways from this book is the necessity of engaging these issues with careful exegesis. Some of the other contributors fared a bit better but given the size of the volume careful biblical exegesis was definitely lacking.
Both Castelo and Peckham's essays were well written and well thought out. While I enjoyed Oord's writing and appreciated much of it, I have more substantial disagreements with his section particularly regarding necessity (as noted by Peckham).
Yet, as far as a starting point and intro to the topic this is a great work. I'll definitely be revisiting it.
Overall, while I want to hold and affirm a form of impassibility I find Dolezal remarkable unclear and unhelpful. His lack of engagement with the biblical text is a problem. One must not simply assume that a historical position is biblical, but to show from the Bible that it is! And one of my biggest take-a-ways from this book is the necessity of engaging these issues with careful exegesis. Some of the other contributors fared a bit better but given the size of the volume careful biblical exegesis was definitely lacking.
Both Castelo and Peckham's essays were well written and well thought out. While I enjoyed Oord's writing and appreciated much of it, I have more substantial disagreements with his section particularly regarding necessity (as noted by Peckham).
Yet, as far as a starting point and intro to the topic this is a great work. I'll definitely be revisiting it.
May 24, 2022
Considering I am going to be writing a paper on this topic by the end of this semester this was very helpful introduction to the topic. I originally thought impassibility just had to do with God having emotions but realizing it is so much more than that. It’s about weather prayer affects God and how he relates to our finite world. It turns out the debate is way more complicated than I originally thought. The first article gets very detailed into metaphysics which mostly went over my head. The Third Article ( qualified passivity) in my mind the best articulated. Also this article I found the most resources to continue researching the topic. He quotes from authors all over the spectrum on the topic. If you are doing a study on impassibility read the third article first to get the best well rounded bibliography.
It’s also interesting there is a little side debate ( found in the response of the third article) about weather natural revelation should be the lenses which we view special revelation or the other way around. Our preconceptions do a lot of our theology for us even if we are unaware.
It’s also fun realizing after you finish the book that one of the editors was your theology professor in college.
It’s also interesting there is a little side debate ( found in the response of the third article) about weather natural revelation should be the lenses which we view special revelation or the other way around. Our preconceptions do a lot of our theology for us even if we are unaware.
It’s also fun realizing after you finish the book that one of the editors was your theology professor in college.
May 3, 2021
Though helpful, this series of essays on (Im)passability was highly technical. I expected such, but it was quite a semantic driven topic with men who had very specific points that needed to be precisely understood. I think each author had some degree of misunderstanding among at least one author at any given time (I as a reader would be foolish to claim I fully comprehended any of the authors).
I liked the content, but I wouldn't want to read most of it again.
I liked the content, but I wouldn't want to read most of it again.
November 21, 2020
Decent book, gives a spectrum of the various views existent in the modern theological literature. In a recent interview of one of the authors, there are basically only 2 views: Impassibility or passibility. Dolezal represents the former and the latter three represent some variant of the latter position. Do wish they was some more space for interaction but overall decent.
October 26, 2025
very interesting conversation
I enjoyed the four views presented here. Each view had interesting and important aspects to it and each response seemed fair and good natured. I don’t think this book can settle the issue but I plan to read more of Peckhams work and more on Dolezal’s position. It’s a great introduction to the subject of impassibility/passibility.
I enjoyed the four views presented here. Each view had interesting and important aspects to it and each response seemed fair and good natured. I don’t think this book can settle the issue but I plan to read more of Peckhams work and more on Dolezal’s position. It’s a great introduction to the subject of impassibility/passibility.
July 24, 2025
Fine book. Disappointed in Castelo’s essay and defense. Dolezal’s argument was by far the best, but I also wish he would have given more biblical examples.
Several of the others seemed to be almost the same argument with slight differences.
Several of the others seemed to be almost the same argument with slight differences.
October 10, 2019
The best introduction to have appeared on the topic so far. Will be a great resource for teaching and for those who are interested in the subject and don't know where to start.
June 30, 2022
Good introduction.
December 5, 2023
Solid and fairly accessible volume that shows the breadth of the debate in a largely charitable fashion. A great introduction to impassibility and related issues.
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews