Christopher Warne has recently given us something to think about in his first and second takes on Moltmann’s challenge to the doctrine of God’s impassibility. There were many things that caught my eye over these two posts. Here is one. Warne claims that, on the point of God’s impassibility at least, Moltmann comes to “a unique conclusion, that he “rejects the traditional doctrine,” that he “takes a new approach,” that he “makes a unique statement,”
In my previous article, I argued that God’s self-sacrificial Love defines the intra-Trinitarian relations. This Love was uniquely demonstrated at the cross, where the Father abandons the Son and the Son is abandoned by the Father, causing both to lose the other for the sake of their Love. Much of this comes as an apologetic response to theologians advocating “Death of God” Theology, which Jurgen Moltmann corrected to “Death in God.” ‘Death of God’ or
In an essay dated September 18, 2019, Conciliar Post guest writer Christopher Warne addresses the attribute of divine impassibility. Warne’s writing is critical of impassibility, leaning heavily on the theology of Jurgen Moltmann. The purpose of this article is to respond to Warne and briefly sketch some reasons why Christians should embrace divine impassibility as an essential attribute of God. Warne argues almost exclusively from Moltmann and Richard Buakham’s analysis of Moltmann. The argument is
Tradition has told us that God is impassable, but is this really true? Historical Theologians remind us that impassibility has more to do with Greek philosophy than Scriptures himself. Is it necessary modern Christians believe God to be impassable, or is there room for a passable God? How does a passable God cause us to newly understand intra-Trinitarian relations? In The Crucified God, Jurgen Moltmann rejects the traditional Platonic belief that God is apatheia, or impassable.