From John Frames’ Scholasticism for Evangelicals: Thoughts on All That Is In God by James Dolezal:
Another difficulty is that the problem he raises recurs on to his own view. Dolezal wants his readers to believe that the changelessness of God (and the other doctrines he defends) is derived from Scripture. But if Scripture is “anthropomorphic through and through,” why is it not anthropomorphic when it speaks of God’s changelessness? Why should we believe literally that God is changeless, but not that God literally became flesh in Jesus? Is it not possible that when God says “I change not” he is speaking nonliterally, anthropomorphically? That text may well be saying “something true about God,” but why should we take it as literal truth, while relegating “the Word became flesh” to a figure?
In fact, texts like “I change not” which yield metaphysical truth about God, are fairly rare in Scripture. Most of the statements about God in Scripture are “mutabilist.” One can argue that the metaphysical statements should take second place to the mutabilist ones in a legitimate hermeneutic. Why should we not say “the word became flesh” is literal, and “I change not” is figurative? Of course, frequency does not equal primacy. But shouldn’t there be some argument at least that the metaphysical statements are so fundamental that they reduce mutabilist statements to a lesser status? So far as I can tell, Dolezal does not supply us with such an argument.
The article refers to a reference on John Frame as (71-73, 92-95)
I’m assuming these are pages to a book John Frame wrote?
But the article doesn’t appear to provide the name of that book – unless I couldn’t see it.
Is it possible to get that info?
Likely No Other God. Not available digitally. Dolezal used anti Open Theist works to criticise these guys. Hilarious.
Oh, you are asking about Dolezal’s book. It is All that is in God.
But if I understand – Dolezal’s book is referencing something John Frame wrote – which he referenced as on pages (71-73, 92-95)
But Dolezal doesn’t appear to say what book from Frame he is referencing
Unless I misunderstood his reference to Frame?