Dr. Richard Barcellos interviewed on the Impassibility of God [Theology on the Go Podcast]

place for truth header

Dr. Richard Barcellos
Dr. Richard Barcellos

From the Alliance of Confessing Evangelical‘s Place for Truth’s podcast “Theology on the Go”:

This week on Theology on the Go the topic will be the impassibility of God [Dr. Jonathan Master interviews Dr. Richard C. Barcellos]. This podcast is the third in a series focusing on the doctrine of the Trinity. In light of the recent Trinitarian controversy, Theology on the Go believes that a series like this is an important service to the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ. So, grab that cup of coffee and meet us at the table!

[27 min. mp3]

2 Replies to “Dr. Richard Barcellos interviewed on the Impassibility of God [Theology on the Go Podcast]”

  1. The impassibility described by Barcellos originates with philosophical, rather than biblical theism.

    While it is true that God is not controlled by anything outside Himself, this interpretation of impassibility is very unbiblical. God describes Himself as jealous, angry, compassionate, etc. While one may simply nullify the Word of God and God’s self testimony by the artifice of anthropomorphism, the only reason to do so is to maintain one’s philosophical presuppositions. God’s nature is immutable, yet He is free to act as He pleases. God’s anger at sin is a response of His nature to what men do. If your theology cannot accommodate that, your theology is unbiblical and defective. The whole eternal/temporal distinction is largely nonsense. Everything exists now. Time is the perception of change. God acts temporally, today. He created the heavens and the earth in six sequential days. The Logos became flesh, died and rose on specific days.

    And Barcellos’ excess emphasis of the Creator-creature distinction as the foundation of his doctrine has profound consequences for the Incarnation. Man was created in the image of God and therefore God could truly become flesh and dwell among us. Christ could be very God of very God and very Man of very Man.
    This is an example of theology gone astray.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *