https://au.thegospelcoalition.org/book-review/not-god-divine-simplicity-simple/
I appreciated this review of James Dolezal's 2017 work All That is In God: Evangelical Theology and the Challenge of Classical Christian Theism - a work that has generated controversy and led to the creation of new factions within Reformed circles. As the subject interests me, I find myself returning to it once again.
The elephant in the room (I think) is the influence of Continental Reformed theology, questions of epistemology, and the influence of Cornelius Van Til. It's no accident that Dolezal is promoted by those in Reformed circles who also celebrate Thomism and so-called 'Classical' (read Roman Catholic) theology. That's perhaps a bit unfair as the Aristotelian tradition was also at work among the Reformed Orthodox (or Scholastics) and indirectly in the Anglo-American Enlightenment tradition which shaped Old Princeton. Many readers will be aware of the battles over the 16th century Magisterial Reformers and to what degree their Renaissance Humanism represented a rejection of Aristotelian-Scholastic categories and methods as well as to what extent the 17th century (in both Lutheran and Reformed circles) marked a re-embrace of this methodology.
Moody (the reviewer) helpfully explains Dolezal's charge of Mutualism which he levies at modern theologians - including many in the Reformed camp. The list contains several associated with the aforementioned Continental/Van Til camp (such as Frame and Oliphint) but also includes some that have been associated with Gordon Clark, as well as New Calvinist/Evangelical figures such as DA Carson and Wayne Grudem. Some (such as J Oliver Buswell) were quite critical of Van Til back in the day, so in reality Dolezal is painting with a broad brush grouping together people that more often than not are opposed to each other.
He charges that mutualism involves symbiosis, both parties deriving something from each other and being moved or affected by the actions of the other. As such he suggests that contemporary theologies and theologians are guilty of this idolatry that undermines classical definitions of God who is not subject to change. The people in question reject his charges and more importantly his framing of the issues at hand.
I would be among those who would argue that Dolezal has fallen prey to rationalist tendencies and while he argues for a coherentist model, the reality is his readings of Scripture are simply inaccurate, manipulated, and ultimately unfaithful. He begins with his premise concerning the doctrine of God and it drives his exegesis and all else. But he seems oblivious to the fact that a great deal of what went into his definition of Theology Proper is informed by philosophical deduction, Roman Catholic scholastic theology, and not Biblical interpretation.
I have not actually read Dolezal's book but I've read much about it and heard him interviewed on many an occasion, as well as perused some of his other writings. To be frank, I'm not sure I want to bother with purchasing and picking up his work. I think I more or less have the gist of what he's trying to argue and I'm unconvinced. Further I'm left wondering (and this might be the one thing to drives me to pick up his work) if he's not flirting with (as is all too common among Western theologians) with a form of Modalism in his understanding of the Trinity. The counter-charge directed at someone like me (as well as the East) is that of Subordinationism - a charge I reject. The issue is the dynamics at work which don't easily fit within the confines of the Western Logic which Dolezal has enshrined.
Reading the review I'm reminded of the Orthodox Essence-Energies distinction - a point I touch on in another Dolezal-related piece. While not always helpful or consistently Biblical, it's indicative of a way of thinking that is alien to Dolezal and many Western thinkers. The discussion usually arises in the context of theosis and the nature of Peter's statement regarding Christians partaking of the Divine nature (2 Peter 1.4). I have yet to see Dolezal treat with this passage but I'm sure he must somewhere.
Moody demonstrates that while Dolezal is consistent, his thinking does not reflect either Biblical language or concepts. And so the debate is really one of historical theology and tradition. Is this in fact what theologians like Aquinas taught? Given that (if we want to be Biblical) we should (and indeed must) reject Aquinas, the answer is at best an academic one. For my part I keep coming back to the fact that this kind of rationalist and imposed systemic thinking is a problem in Calvinist circles and thus I'm not (at all) surprised to find out that Dolezal is a Baptist. This is not said to offend Baptist readers but rather to acknowledge or point out a tendency that I have observed over and over again for almost thirty years.
Moody aptly demonstrates the Scriptures don't speak the way Dolezal speaks and don't seem to share his concerns. The doctrine of God is course of supreme importance but the Incarnation itself largely shatters these rigid and rather narrow categories Dolezal provides and insists upon - especially the reality that the Resurrected Incarnate Christ is forever reigning in heaven - the Theanthropos, the Son of Man ever in hypostatic union with the Second Person of the Trinity. I am well aware of how this is responded to - by means of a surgical separation between divine and human natures.
On that note (I would add), the way the New Testament treats the Incarnation is not nearly as air-tight or hermetically sealed as we commonly see with those who carefully draw distinctions between His Divine and Human natures. I prefer to leave the ambiguities, tensions, and dualities unresolved - the revealed mysteries Paul so often speaks of. Undoubtedly Dolezal would also have to condemn Lutheran conceptions of the Incarnation - a system far more guilty of his contrived mutualist doctrine than anything we find within the Calvinist and Reformed world.
I found these paragraphs from Moody to be particularly stirring:
"Nor is it true that God’s action in space and time is simply a matter of revealing himself to us in simple ways. By acting in the world—even through creatures—God creates new relationships with us: he becomes God for us in a new way. The events of salvation history don’t just give us an accommodated revelation; they lead to an accommodated divine presence within creation.
Of course this is supremely the case with Christ. In his incarnation, life, death, resurrection and ascension, changes take place—not just in the life of the man, Jesus—but in God’s relationship to us through that man.
Dolezal fails to see this. He insists that the incarnation cannot be used as a template for God generally, since the changes only relate to Christ’s human nature. But the incarnation by itself destroys his case. The mission of Christ didn’t just involve Christ’s humanity, it involved the Second Person of the Trinity who was incarnate in that humanity.[1] Thus orthodox (Chalcedonian) Christology insists that it was God who was born of the virgin; God who died on the cross. The God of the Bible is both outside time and a man ruling history in heaven. Both are our God and will remain so forever.
This is not a trivial point. It is central to our hope and our salvation. If God didn’t die on the cross then, as Anselm points out, our sins have not been paid for. Our infinite debt required the infinite sacrifice of God the Son. Unhappily, however, there is not a single reference to the cross in this book."
One might say that Dolezal also exhibits a tendency we often see within Systematic-Scholastic theology - a heavy emphasis on the Doctrine of God that tends to downplay (and fails to properly incorporate) the Christology and Christocentricity of the New Testament and its centrality with regard to revelation, the gospel, and yes, the very knowledge of God.
The quote from Origen regarding the attribute of omnipotence (almighty-ness) and the necessary existence of the universe (for the concept to have any referential meaning) demonstrates the kind of trouble philosophical theology gets into. This method and the kind of questions it generates are not helpful or edifying but exhibit undue curiosity and even hubris. The Scriptures are sufficient for life in this present evil age - leaving a great deal that is unanswered and mystery. Dolezal comes from a long line of thinkers that are confident in their philosophical prowess and ability to predicate metaphysical truths. It results in scenarios in which they functionally tweak and even correct divine revelation. History also repeatedly demonstrates how these approaches turn inward and ultimately self-destruct leading to things Unitarianism and worse.
Perhaps some will see the problem - language connected to absolute attributes that (for them to have any meaning) creates problems with the idea of God existing outside of creation and functionally undermines the very concept of aseity (Divine Simplicity). This is a labyrinth from which there is no escape. It's a trap and Dolezal has walked right into it and in order to find a solution, is willing to pull down the entire house.
Moody is correct in pointing out that Dolezal's thinking represents an abuse of Systematic Theology or as I would put it - it's systematics gone to seed. It's been striking to observe Dolezal's self-confidence and unwavering assertiveness in contrast with those who think of him as one who has made something of a fool of himself.
This debate has faded a bit - it was raging back in 2018 and thereabouts. But I find myself coming back to it over and over again as I wrestle with basic issues of prolegomena. Each time I return I find myself disagreeing even more with Dolezal. This episode was no exception.
See also:
https://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2024/08/the-perils-of-viewing-godhead-through.html
https://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2022/06/sola-scriptura-and-divine-simplicity-i.html
https://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2024/10/natural-theology-reformed-tradition-and.html