We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded by your direct support for ReKnew and our vision. Please consider supporting this project.

Is Open Theism Incompatible With a Chalcedonian Christology?

Question: The Chalcedonian Creed says Jesus was “fully God and fully human” and that these “two natures” remained distinct in the Incarnation, even though Jesus was one united person. I’m told that part of the reasoning behind the concern to keep Jesus’ humanity distinct from his divinity was to protect the “impassibility” of the divine nature (impassible = God does not suffer). Since Open Theists reject divine impassibility, shouldn’t they also reject the Chalcedonian Christology? In fact, couldn’t one argue that the rejection of divine immutability requires one to also reject a Chacledonian Christology?

Answer: Historically, there were a number of factors that led to the Chalcedonian Creed. The most important, I would argue, was that the Church wanted to affirm the full divinity and full humanity of Christ as revealed in Scripture over and against a number of competing views that were subsequently judged to be unorthodox.  At the same time, its undeniable that the increasing influence of the platonic paradigm of perfection (and thus of God) as impassible and immutable on the evolving theology of the church throughout the second, third and fourth centuries affected the particular way many worked out the two natures of Christ. It was, in particular, a strong influential force in the fear some had of “mingling” the two natures.

But I don’t see that Open Theists need to reject the Chalcedonian Creed to be consistent. It’s important to note that many classical theists now reject the classical understandings of immutability and impassibility, and many others attempt to argue that the classical understanding of these concepts was not as absolute as was previous thought (that is, immutability didn’t mean God was unchanging in every respect and impassibility didn’t mean God is above suffering in every respect.) Yet few theologians feel compelled to reject the Chalcedonian Christology. It’s also important to note that many today – including some classical theists – are rethinking the concept of “nature.” It is at least as much in question as are the concepts of impassibility and immutability.

In this light, it’s clearly difficult to argue that any given theological position – including Open Theism — is intrinsically inconsistent with the Chalcedonian Christology.

Related Reading

How do you respond to 1 Timothy 4:1–3?

“…in the later times some will renounce the faith by paying attention to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the hypocrisy of liars whose consciences are seared with a hot iron. They forbid marriage and demand abstinence from foods…” New Testament authors considered themselves to be living “in the later times” (e.g. Acts 2:17;…

What is the significance of Jeremiah 18:7–11?

The Lord states that “if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will change my mind about the disaster that I intended to bring on it.” But if a nation which he has declared he will bless “does evil in my sight…I will change my mind about the good that…

Topics:

What is the significance of Judges 2:20–3:5?

The Lord did not provide any assistance in Israel’s battles, “In order to test Israel, whether or not they would take care to walk in the way of the Lord as their ancestors did” (vs. 22). The pagan opponents of Israel “were for the testing of Israel, to know whether Israel would obey the commandments…

Topics:

Does the Bible forbid interracial marriages?

Absolutely not! Racist Christians used to argue against interracial marriage by quoting Old Testament passages that prohibited Jews from marrying non-Jews. This prohibition had nothing to do with race, however. In fact, there was no concept of different “races” until white Europeans invented it during the Colonial period, partly to justify their enslavement of other…

How do you respond to Judges 9:23?

“…God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the lords of Schechem; and the lords of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech.” (cf. 1 Sam. 16:14; 1 Kings 22:19–23). Some compatibilists cite this passage to support the view that evil spirits always carry out the Lord’s will (though they contend that God is good for willing…

Was Jesus Fully Human and Fully God?

The New Testament is very clear that Jesus was a full human being. He had to grow in wisdom (Lk 2:52) and learn obedience by going through trials, just like every other human being (Heb. 5:8). He grew hungry and tired, like the rest of us. He experienced the same range of emotions as the…