Spurgeon vs. Spurgeon: Further reflections on the doctrine of divine impassibility [Tom Chantry]

spurgeon1Tom Chantry digs deeper into Spurgeon’s dismissal of the confessional language that, as Spurgeon put it, God is “…’without parts or passions’—I think was the definition.” :

Now this is curious indeed. In 1882 Spurgeon would say that he “often inwardly objected” to the confessional expression of impassibility. We can certainly take him at his word, but we now need to wonder whether he understood what that expression intended. For like it or not, Spurgeon in 1855 clearly articulated the very arguments which the confessional generation applied in favor of that doctrine. If what Spurgeon says in the above paragraph applies to the love of God – and clearly he intends it to so apply – then perhaps he did believe in divine impassibility. Is it possible that he held the view but did not understand the phrase?

Read Spurgeon vs. Spurgeon.

2 Replies to “Spurgeon vs. Spurgeon: Further reflections on the doctrine of divine impassibility [Tom Chantry]”

  1. “A man may have an off night for personal reasons; deliberative bodies which consciously interact with the creeds of the ages rarely do.” A Reformed Baptist should think twice before disagreeing with his/her confession. Pastor Chantry makes the observation, Spurgeon had only himself to think twice with. Which I think is another good reason for associating with other confessing brothers and sisters–even outside your local church.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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