Dolezal, James E. All that Is in God: Evangelical Theology and the Challenge of Classical Christian Theism. Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage, 2017.

Key Issues and Persons

Dolezal identifies his purpose at the outset: “The chief problem I address in this work is the abandonment of God’s simplicity and of the infinite pure actuality of His being” (loc. 117). Later he says, “The underlying and inviolable conviction is that God does not derive any aspect of His being from outside Himself and is not in any way caused to be” (loc. 182). In contrast to his own view are those he labels “theistic mutualists.” Of them he says, “This ontological openness to being changed by creatures, whether initiated by God or by creatures themselves, is the common denominator of all forms of theistic mutaliusm. Thesitic mutualists may disagree among themselves on precisely how much process and development to allow in God or even over what the ultimate source or cause of such development might be. But all hold to a divine ontology that allows for God to acquire and shed actuality of being” (loc 216).*

Dolezal’s list of theistic mutualists is a who’s who of evangelical scholars: J. Oliver Buswell, D. A. Carson, William Lane Craig, R. L. Dabney, John Feinberg, John Frame, Charles Hodge, Ronald Nash, Donald Macleod, J. P, Moreland, K. Scott Oliphint, J. I. Packer, Alvin Plantinga, Robert Reymond, Kevin Vanhoozer, Bruce Ware, Nicholas Wolterstorff. But Dolezal holds that on his side are Thomas Aquinas, Francis Turretin, John Owen, Herman Bavinck, and the Reformed confessions.

For Dolezal the stakes of this debate are high. He quotes favorably Eastern Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart that any god other than that of classical theism “can never be more than an idol: a god, but not God; a theos, but not to Theos; a being, not Being in its transcendent fullness.” Dolezal himself goes on to say, “The reason for these strong objections to mutualist understandings of God is that such a God is inevitably mutable and finite and as such is unworthy of worship” (loc. 256). Though Dolezal at times softens his rhetoric, indicating that he thinks that some of the men above know not what they teach, the charge is still serious. It amounts to a charge of heresy, and for the Reformed men, at least, an abandonment of their confessions.

Theological Methodology: Scripture and Confessions

At the root of the division that Dolezal outlines is a methodological debate within evangelicalism between exegetically-focused theologians and historically-focused theologians. On the one side are the exegetically-oriented theologians who wish to tie their theological conclusions tightly with exegesis. On the other side are the historically-oriented theologians who make much of how the creeds and confessions were understood in the past.

An exegetically-focused theology that is historically uninformed can end up in serious error. The theologian may not recognize that his formulations have already been tried and found wanting because they carry theological implications not consistent with the rest of Scripture. If an exegetically-oriented theologian is departing from confessional tradition, he should do so hesitantly and having interacted carefully with the opposing arguments. On the other hand, it is not sufficient for the historically-oriented theologian to reject new formulations from an exegetically-oriented theologian simply because great theologians of the past, or even church confessions, take a different position. The historically-oriented theologians must demonstrate the exegetical feasibility of their position.

Herman Bavinck outlines a proper theological methodology in volume one of his Reformed Dogmatics. He observes, “A good dogmatic method…needs to take account of all three factors, Scripture, church, and Christian consciousness (1:84). But these three factors are not equal. Bavinck grants, “In every branch of learning, the practitioner begins by living from the tradition. He always gains his first acquaintance of the field from an authority…. It is no different for the dogmatician.” Though this is true “pedagogically,” Bavinck  concludes, “Scripture is the sole foundation (principium unicum) of church and theology. In the case of conflict between them, the possibility of which can never be denied on a Reformational view, church and confession must yield to Scripture. Not the church but Scripture is self-authenticating (αὐτοπιστος), the judge of controversies (iudex controversiarum), and its own interpreter (sui ipsius interpres). Nothing may be put on a level with Scripture. Chruch, confession, tradition—all must be ordered and adjusted by it and submit themselves to it…. The confession deserves credence only because and insofar as it agrees with Scripture and, as the fallible work of human hands, remains open to revision and examination by the standard of Scripture” (1:86). As the remainder of Bavinck’s Dogmatics reveals, Bavinck is by no means dismissive of historical theology or the creeds and confessions. But he also attempts to ground his theological exegetically. He begins with exegetical work, moves to history and philosophy, and concludes with his theological formulation.

Though Dolezal claims to be defending the Reformed confessions his methodology is not aligned with the Reformed methodology outlined by Bavinck. A comparison between Dolezal’s treatment of immutability and Bavinck’s demonstrates this. Commendably, Dolezal does begin his discussion of immutability with a discussion of Scripture. However, it is not clear that the Scripture passages he cites actually prove what he seeks to prove. For instance, does Malachi 3:6 really prove that God is pure actuality: “For I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed”? In addition, Dolezal does not deal with the passages that seem to indicate that God does change. Instead, he notes that that Bible speaks of God’s body parts, or his moving through space, and of his changing his mind. He notes that these are anthropomorphic passages and asserts that “when the Bible speaks of God as experiencing changes of relation, affection, or agency” these texts should be understood in the same way. There is no exegetical engagement with why some understand a reference to God’s nostrils as anthropomorphic but cannot understand a reference to God’s anger as anthropopathic (Psalm 17:7-8).

Bavinck, on the other hand, observes the variety of passages that would seem to count against immutability as well as the different ways in which the Bible teaches that God does not change (e.g., with regard to “existence and being” but also with regard to “thought and will” and “plans and decisions”). When Bavinck, after surveying the history of the doctrine and its philosophical implications, formulates the doctrine, he takes all of the biblical data into account. He affirms that God is immutable in “essence,” “knowledge,” and “will.” He also holds that scriptural language about God changing is anthropomorphic. But he also observes, “This immutability, however, should not be confused with monotonous sameness or rigid immobility. Scripture itself leads us in describing God in the most manifold relations to all his creatures. While immutable in himself, he nevertheless, as it were, lives the life of his creatures and participates in all their changing states.” Nonetheless, Scripture, Bavinck avers, “prohibits us from positing any change in God himself” (2:153-59).

Because Bavinck dealt with the full range of Scripture, I found his account of immutability more satisfying than Dolezal’s even though they allegedly hold to the same position. In Dolezal there was a great deal of emphasis on the implications of God being pure actuality without Bavinck’s qualification that this cannot mean that God exists in a “rigid immobility” that prevents his “manifold relations to all his creatures.”

Theological Methodology: The Role of Philosophy

Dolezal’s largely philosophical approach is not a minor aspect of his methodology. In his discussion of simplicity Dolezal says,

The medieval scholastic theologians, as well as the seventeenth-century Protestant scholastics who followed them, had articulated the doctrine of simplicity in terms of an elaborate scheme of denials in which the four causes known through Aristotelian metaphysics (final, formal, efficient, and material) were carefully denied of God. But one would need to presuppose the basic accuracy of Aristotelian metaphysics (or at least that version of it as modified by Aquinas and others) for such elaborate denials to continue to make sense. After Hume and Kant’s attack on the perennial Aristotelian philosophy, many a Christian theologian opted to abandon, rather than defend, the metaphysical structure (regarding being, becoming, and causation) in terms of which simplicity had been so meticulously developed. Indeed, many Christian theologians and ministers retreated from the field of metaphysics altogether and retrenched themselves in their Bibles, assuming that the Bible’s teaching could be successfully preserved without committing oneself to a particular understanding of being. [loc 1390-98]

This may be one of the most important methodological statements in Dolezal’s book. It states that Dolezal believes that Aristotelian metaphysics are essential to formulating an orthodox doctrine of God.** This is a massive claim, and it would commit Dolezal, one would think, to demonstrating that the Scripture itself requires, or at least implies, an Aristotelian metaphysic. Failing this, I think Dolezal’s insistence on an Aristotelian metaphysic violates the Reformation principle of the sufficiency of Scripture.

Timothy Ward observes the doctrine of Scripture’s sufficiency has two aspects: “‘Material sufficiency’ asserts that Scripture contains everything necessary to be known and responded to for salvation and faithful discipleship…. ‘Formal sufficiency’ claims that Scripture as the word of God ought not ultimately to be subject to any external authority of the church or a Spirit-filled individual, and so is significantly ‘self-interpreting'” (“Scripture, Sufficiency of,” DTIB, 730). Though Ward does not mention the external authority of a philosophical system, such an authority would contradict the formal sufficiency of Scripture.

Leinsle, in his Introduction to Scholastic Theology, observes that this was precisely the issue that faced the medieval church with the recovery of Aristotle: “The old formula that philosophy is the ancilla [handmaid] of theology presupposed a philosophy restricted to instrumental disciplines. Could this formula still be applied to an independent, comprehensive pagan interpretation of the world, as found in Aristotle’s works, or did scholars have to redefine the relationship [between theology and philosophy” (134, brackets supplied by the translator). Whether Thomas managed to keep philosophy in its ancillary position or not remains a debate until the present day. However that historical debate is solved, Dolezal’s insistence that theologians must accept an Aristotelian metaphysic makes Aristotle no longer an ancilla but a lord over theology, violating the sufficiency of Scripture. Once again in defending what he understands to be the classic Reformed doctrine of God, it seems that Dolezal has departed from the theological method of the Reformation and Post-Reformation.

A practical problem that flows from this problematic methodology is Dolezal’s tendency to come to conclusions on the basis of what logically must be despite Scripture statements to the contrary. For instance, noting agreement that God does not possess nostrils (having no body) or move through space (being omnipresent), Dolezal argues that references to God’s anger or mercy should be understood as anthropopathisms: “God alters the revelation of Himself without altering Himself ontologically. He unchangingly wills change in His ad extra dealings with creatures without willing or experiencing a corresponding change of agency in His own intrinsic actuality. The proper locus of all change is in the revelation of God … and in the effects of His sovereign administration.”*** But does this mean, as some have said, that a Christian is not someone who was formerly under God’s wrath but is now under God’s grace, being, instead, someone who moved to a knowledge of always being under God’s grace? Or is Dolezal saying that when the Scripture speaks of God’s anger that it is not speaking of any affections in God but only of his ad extra acts of punishment? If so, logic seems to be running roughshod over revelation. I would want to affirm immutability and to affirm the move from wrath to grace. And while recognizing that God is impassible, I would not want to deny the affections of love, anger, jealousy, compassion, etc. to God. While recognizing that our language with reference to God is analogical rather than univocal, I want to guard against taking the Scripture’s language about God to be equivocal. This, I think, Dolezal was sometimes in danger of doing. It cannot be that Scripture gives us inadequate and misleading ways of speaking about God that can only be fixed when translated into a philosophical mode of speaking. This is not to deny the theology the role of synthesizing revelation about God; it is to insist that God’s revelation of himself take priority over our deductions of what must be.

A final problem to note with this philosophically-oriented approach is Dolezal’s failure to address problems that his position might logically lead to. For instance, when he claims that relative attributes in God are not ontologically relative, does he make creation necessary? If not, why not? If he is going to critique those who wish to affirm classical theism but who also wish to account for Scripture statements regarding God’s affections or other relations that he has with people for their logical consequences, does he not also have to deal with logical consequences as well? And if the answer at some point is that these things are mysterious (as indeed they are!) why does he draw the line of mystery where he does?

Theological Methodology: Categorizing Classical Theists and Theistic Mutalists

A final methodological problem has to do with Dolezal’s classification of people into the two categories of classical theist and theistic mutalist. There are great differences between those Dolezal groups in the theistic mutualist category. For instance, William Lane Craig does not hold to God’s timelessness and, according to Dolezal, holds to “a form of social trinitarianism.” This puts him at some distance from, say, J. I. Packer. Dolezal, in his discussions of individuals, is clear about these differences. However, in his evaluations they are all lumped back together as theistic mutualists.

On the other hand, there are significant differences among classical theists that are not raised. As noted above, some classical theists seem to argue that a Christian has not moved from wrath to grace but that he has moved to a knowledge that he is under God’s grace. Other classical theists seem to argue that there is a move from wrath to grace, but that that move happens in us rather than in God. Our position as sinner placed us in a wrath relationship to God and at salvation we moved into a grace relationship with God. God didn’t change; our relationship to God changed. I would find the latter position acceptable but the former completely unacceptable, that is unbiblical.

Conclusion

I would not recommend this book as the way forward in the debates about theology proper. Its incendiary charge of idolatry and its problematic methodology renders it an unfit guide. More particularly, Dolezal’s philosophical/speculative approach tends towards saying that what God has revealed cannot really be so because it conflicts with certain philosophical deductions.

My theological method gives weight, though not an authoritative weight, to historical theology and confessions. So I am open to the idea that theology from Hodge to Vanhoozer has taken a wrong turn in theology proper. But that wrong turn and the alternative need to be demonstrated and established on the basis of sound exegesis. Elements of theology proper that are deduced from good and necessary consequence must be good and necessary consequences that flow from rightly exegeted Scripture. As a way forward I would recommend reading the primary sources: Aquinas, Turretin, Owen, Bavinck, Hodge, Oliphint, Horton, Vanhoozer, and Frame. Evaluate their positions according to a methodology that gives due weight to tradition as an ancilla to theology but which retains Scripture as the foundation for theology.

Endnotes

*Not all whom Dolezal places in the category of theistic mutalist would agree with this description of their position. Dolezal, however, maintains that these theistic mutalists misunderstand their own position because they misunderstand the nature of being: “Part of the reason many evangelical theistic mutalists do not recognize that they have already adopted a form of ontological becoming in God is because they have lost sight of what ‘being’ means. They mistakenly assume that ‘being’ indicates merely ‘nature’ or ‘essence.’ Rather it denotes any actuality or ‘is-ness’ whatsoever, that is, any participation in the act of existing (in esse, or ‘to be’)” (loc. 272).

**Dolezal’s insistence that the Bible must be understood through the lens of an Aristotelian metaphysic helps explain the previous endnote. Dolezal describes those he identifies as theistic mutalists in terms that not all would accept on the grounds that they don’t understand “what ‘being’ means.” What he means by this is: they don’t accept an Aristotelian view of being.

***It is worth noting that there is some incongruence in arguing for anthropopathism on the grounds that everybody acknowledges anthropomorphism. In the first place, many of the anthropomorphisms used of God are idiomatic expressions. For instance, Jeremiah 48:25 says “The horn of Moab is cut off, and his arm is broken, declares the LORD.” Clearly, “arm” is idiomatic for strength or power, and we should expect, when we read God say in Isaiah, “Was my arm too short to deliver you?” (Isa. 50:2) the idiom to also refer to power. So when Numbers 32:10 says that Yhwh “was hot in the nostrils” this is clearly not an statement regarding God’s body; it is an idiom regarding anger. This the translation: “And the Lord’s anger was kindled on that day.” But, having rendered the Hebrew idiom into an English idiom are we now required to argue that God’s anger cannot be kindled because God is immutable and impassible? Can we not affirm immutability, impassibility and that it is proper to ascribe the affection of anger to God?

Edited 3/26/2020

Swain, Scott and Michael Allen. “The Obedience of the Eternal Son,” International Journal of Systematic Theology 15, no. 2 (April 2013): 114-34.

Swain and Allen observe that in the last century numbers of theologians have argued that obedience is part of the Son’s proper work eternally in the external works of the Trinity. This observation includes not only evangelical theologians such as Grudem and Ware but also theologians such as Barth and von Balthasar.

Worryingly for Swain and Allen, “Affirming the obedience of the only-begotten Son has in many cases entailed significant revisions to classical trinitarian metaphysics” (115). They list as examples: “historicizing of the doctrine of God,” “metaphysics of trinitarian kenosis,” “replacing eternal generation with obedience as the Son’s distinguishing personal property,” and “social trinitarianism, which affirms three centers of self-consciousness and willing within the triune God.”

Swain and Allen wish to affirm “the claim that obedience constitutes the proper form of the Son’s divine work in the economy of salvation.” They wish to avoid adjusting “traditional trinitarian metaphysics” (116).

They therefore argue that rather than working from economy back to essence, one should work from essence toward economy: “mode of acting follows mode of being.” With this approach, “the Son’s obedience to the Father in the economy of salvation” is “the economic extension of his eternal generation.” It “constitutes the proper filial mode whereby he executes the Trinity’s undivided work of salvation” (117). The wording here seems significantly precise. The obedience of the Son is something economic, not essential. The work of salvation in which the Son is obedient to the Father is “the Trinity’s undivided work” (that is, there is single will in the Triune God). But the economy works out the way it does because it is grounded in an ontology in which the Father eternally generates the Son.

In the third section of their essay, Swain and Allen seek to ground their theology exegetically in John 1 and 5. Drawing on the exegesis of Thomas Aquinas, they argue that saying the Word is the one through whom the world is created is not an assertion that the Word is the instrument through which the Father created but is instead an assertion that “the Word performs the common trinitarian work of creation in a manner consistent with his distinctive mode of being” (122). This leads to the following thesis: “As the Son’s proper mode of being God consists in the pure relation wherein he receives his being from the Father, so the Son’s proper mode of acting as God consists in the pure relation wherein he receives his actions from the Father” (123-24).

The more significant passage for this argument seems to be John 5:19-30. Swain and Allen see two claims that emerge from this passage: “The first claim is that Jesus does nothing on his own initiative, but only what he sees the Father doing. The second claim is that Jesus, in following his Father’s lead, does everything that his Father does” (124). Swain and Allen assert that the first claim implies that the Son is inferior to the Father and the second claim entails that he is equal with the Father. Not only are “these seemingly contradictory claims” made “within the same context,” but “John 5:19 insists that the former claim is the basis for the latter claim” (124). The theological conclusion drawn: “the obedience of the Son to the Father who sends him constitutes the Son’s opus proprium within the undivided opera Trinitatis ad extra” (126).

In part four of this essay Swain and Allen respond to three questions that their argument has raised. First, does the obedience of the eternal Son imply two wills in the Godhead? Second, does obedience suggest a lack of omnipotence? Third, “does not all this smack too much of a ‘substance ontology'” (131)? In answer to the first question, Swain and Allen assert that “the Son’s obedience to the Father in the work of salvation is not indicative of a second will alongside that of the Father but of the proper mode whereby Jesus shares the Father’s will as the only-begotten Son of the Father” (127). In answer to the second question they assert, “The eternal Son exists receptively as one whose self-existence (autotheos) and almightiness are granted to him by the Father” (128). They key exegetical support for these two answers is found in John 10:17-18. In answer to the third question, they appeal to John 1, which they say “distinguishes the being of the Word…(1:1-2, 18)…from the becoming that characterizes the economy of creation and redemption (1:3, 6, 10, 14, 17…)” (131).

The ultimate conclusion: “the external works of the Trinity are indivisible (opera ad extra trinitatis indivisa sunt), though they are performed by all the persons in their own person-specific, ‘proper’ ways” (133).

[The] Spirit who jointly with Father and Son beautifies and completes all things in the creation. [Bavinck, RD, 2:269]

Matthew 1:18—18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.

Luke 1:35—35 And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God.

Matthew 4:1—1 Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.

Mark 1:12—12 The Spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness.

Luke 4:1—1 And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness

Luke 4:14—14 And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit to Galilee, and a report about him went out through all the surrounding country.

John 14:16—16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever,

John 15:26—26 “But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me.

Romans 1:4—4 and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,

Regeneration, renewal, sanctification, and communion is from the Holy Spirit [Bavinck, 2:270]

John 3:5—5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

John 14-16

Romans 5:5—5 and hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.

Romans 8:15—15 For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!”

Romans 14:17—17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.

2 Corinthians 1:21–22—21 And it is God who establishes us with you in Christ, and has anointed us, 22 and who has also put his seal on us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.

1 Peter 1:2—2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you.

1 John 5:6—6 This is he who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ; not by the water only but by the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.

. . . through whom the Father created all things. [Bavinck, RD, 2:269]

John 1:3—All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

1 Corinthians 8:6—yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

Colossians 1:15–17—He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Hebrews 1:3—3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

Mediatorship, the atonement, salvation, grace, wisdom, and righteousness pertain to the Son. [Bavinck, RD, 2:270]

Matthew 1:21—She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.

1 Corinthians 1:30—And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption,

Ephesians 1:10–11—as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. 11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,

1 Timothy 2:5—For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

1 Peter 1:2—according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you.

1 John 2:2—He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

The passages below are gathered largely, but probably not exclusively, from Bavinck. There are a few cases where I’m not sure Bavinck has interpreted/classified the passage correctly, but I’ve still left those passages in the listing as worthy of consideration.

God’s fatherhood of the Son is his particular personal attribute. He alone is of himself, the first in the order of existence (John 5:26) and hence the Father both in creation and re-creation, from whom all things exist (1 Cor. 8:6). [Bavinck, RD, 2:272.]

Uniquely the Father of the Son

In a unique metaphysical sense God is the father of his Son. Jesus consistently makes an essential distinction between the relation in which he himself, and that in which others—the Jews, the disciples—stand to the Father. [Bavinck, RD, 2:272.]

Matthew 11:25–27—25 At that time Jesus declared, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; 26 yes, Father, for such was your gracious will. 27 All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.

Luke 22:29—and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom,

John 2:16—16 And he told those who sold the pigeons, “Take these things away; do not make my Father’s house a house of trade.”

John 5:17—But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I am working.”

John 5:18–24—This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise. For the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing. And greater works than these will he show him, so that you may marvel. For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. For the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

John 14:6–13—Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.” Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves. “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father. Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

John 17:25–26—O righteous Father, even though the world does not know you, I know you, and these know that you have sent me. 26 I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them.”

John 20:17—Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’ ”

Romans 15:6—that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Corinthians 15:24—Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power.

2 Corinthians 1:3—Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort,

Galatians 1:1—Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead—

Ephesians 1:1—Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are in Ephesus, and are faithful in Christ Jesus:

The Father as Creator of All Things

The Father is “the Creator of all things . . . . All things derive their existence form him.” (Bavinck, RD, 2:269).

In its most general sense, this name [Father] refers to God as the creator of all his works, especially of humankind. [Bavinck, RD, 2:272]

Numbers 16:22—And they fell on their faces and said, “O God, the God of the spirits of all flesh, shall one man sin, and will you be angry with all the congregation?”

Matthew 7:11— If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!

Luke 3:38—the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Acts 17:28—28 for “ ‘In him we live and move and have our being’; as even some of your own poets have said, “ ‘For we are indeed his offspring.’

1 Corinthians 8:6—yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

Ephesians 3:15—from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named,

Hebrews 12:9—Besides this, we have had earthly fathers who disciplined us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live?

The Father’s Foreknowledge, Election, Power, Love, and Kingdom

The ‘good pleasure,’ the foreknowledge, the election, the power, the love, and the kingdom all belong to the Father. [Bavinck, RD, 2:270.]

Matthew 6:13—And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.

Matthew 11:26—yes, Father, for such was your gracious will.

John 3:16—“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Romans 8:29—For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.

Ephesians 1:9—making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ

1 Peter 1:2—according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you.

Creator of Israel

God is Israel’s father inasmuch as he created and preserved his people by his marvelous power. Bavinck, RD, 2:272

Deuteronomy 32:6—Do you thus repay the LORD, you foolish and senseless people? Is not he your father, who created you, who made you and established you?

Isaiah 63:16—For you are our Father, though Abraham does not know us, and Israel does not acknowledge us; you, O LORD, are our Father, our Redeemer from of old is your name.

Isaiah 64:8—But now, O LORD, you are our Father; we are the clay, and you are our potter; we are all the work of your hand.

Malachi 1:6—“A son honors his father, and a servant his master. If then I am a father, where is my honor? And if I am a master, where is my fear? says the LORD of hosts to you, O priests, who despise my name. But you say, ‘How have we despised your name?’

Malachi 2:10—Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us? Why then are we faithless to one another, profaning the covenant of our fathers?

Jeremiah 3:19—“ ‘I said, How I would set you among my sons, and give you a pleasant land, a heritage most beautiful of all nations. And I thought you would call me, My Father, and would not turn from following me.

Jeremiah 31:9—With weeping they shall come, and with pleas for mercy I will lead them back, I will make them walk by brooks of water, in a straight path in which they shall not stumble, for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.

Romans 9:4—They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises.

God as Father of Believers in an Ethical Sense

In the New testament this meaning [of the name Father] changes into the ethical one in which God is the father of his children. Bavinck, RD, 2:272

Matthew 6:4—so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

Matthew 6:8–9—Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. 9 Pray then like this: “Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name.

Romans 8:15—For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!”’

Concluding Thought

Both in the Old and in the New Testament, God is the Father who occupies first place. His is the purpose (Acts 4:28; Eph 1:11), the good pleasure (Matt. 11:26; Eph. 1:9), the initiative in creation and re-creation (Ps 33:6; John 3:16), the kingdom and the power (ἐξουσια, δυναμις, Matt. 6:13 KJV; Rom. 3:26; 2 Tim. 4:8), the righteousness (Gen. 18:25; Deut. 32:4; John 17:25; Rom. 3:26; 2 Tim. 4:8), the goodness, wisdom, immortality, unapproacble light (Matt. 19:17; Rom. 16:27; 1 Tim. 6:16). He, accordingly, regularly bears the name ‘God’ in a special sense. He is Elohim, YHWH Elohim, El Elyon, El Shaddai, the one true God (μονος ἀληθινος θεος, John 17:3), the one God (ἐις θεος, 1 Cor. 8:6; 1 Tim. 2:5), who is mentioned as God and Father alongside the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:6; 2 Cor. 13:13; 1 Thess. 1:3; Rev. 1:6) Even Christ not only calls him his Father but also his God (Matt. 27:46; John 20:17; Heb. 1:9; 2:17; 5:1; 10:7, 9) and is himself called ‘the Christ of God’ (Luke 9:20; 1 Cor. 3:23; Rev. 12:10). [Bavinck, RD, 2:272.]

I believe a began gathering these passages under these categories by looking first at Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics, but this has probably been supplemented from other sources as well over time. Scripture is quoted from the ESV.

There is only One God

Deuteronomy 6:4—“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.

Isaiah 44:8—Fear not, nor be afraid; have I not told you from of old and declared it? And you are my witnesses! Is there a God besides me? There is no Rock; I know not any.”

Isaiah 45:21—Declare and present your case; let them take counsel together! Who told this long ago? Who declared it of old? Was it not I, the LORD? And there is no other god besides me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none besides me.

John 17:3—And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ hom you have sent.

1 Corinthians 8:4—Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.”

Ontological Unity of the Three Persons

John 10:30—30 I and the Father are one.” (see John 10:33, 38)

Matthew 28:19—19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

“And just as Jesus finally sums up his instruction in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, so also the apostles again and again put these names side by side and on the same level.” [Bavinck, RD, 2:270.]

1 Corinthians 8:6—6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

1 Corinthians 12:4–6—4 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; 5 and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; 6 and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone.

2 Corinthians 13:14—14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.

2 Thessalonians 2:13–14—13 But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. 14 To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Ephesians 4:4–6—4 There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

1 Peter 1:2—2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you.

1 John 5:4–6—4 For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith. 5 Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? 6 This is he who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ; not by the water only but by the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.

Revelation 1:4–6—4 John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne, 5 and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood 6 and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

Unity of Purpose and Action Among the Persons of the Trinity

Luke 1:35—35 And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God.

Matthew 3:16–17—16 And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; 17 and behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.” || Mark 1:10-11; Lk 3:21-22

John 5:26—26 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.

1 Corinthians 12:4–6—4 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; 5 and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; 6 and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone.

Unfortunately, many atheistic attacks on theistic systems for their alleged inadequacy in handling evil amount to nothing more than a rejection of the theist’s account of God, evil, or freedom. It is legitimate for an atheist to claim that that the theistic account of these items is inadequate. It is illegitimate, however, for the atheist to claim that a theist cannot solve his problem of evil on such a basis. If the theist, on his own views, can resolve he problem of evil generated by his system, then his system is internally consistent, regardless of whether the atheist or other theists like the intellectual commitments of the system.

John Feinberg, “Evil, Problem of,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 387

We need to sharpen our sense of proportion. It would be nice to have a solution to the problem of evil, but not at any price. If the price we must pay is the very sovereignty of God, the faithful Christian must say that price is too high. After all, it of little importance whether any of us discovers the answer to the problem of evil. It is possible to live a long and happy and faithful life without an answer. But it is all-important that we worship the true God, the God of Scripture. Without him, human life is worth nothing.

John Frame, Apologetics for the Glory of God, 154.