Wyatt, thank you for this charitable piece. I'm 25, and have been deeply influenced by Comer over the past 5 or so years. I read his 'The Ruthless Elimination Of Hurry' a couple of years ago and it was deeply helpful (for a distracted/anxious 20 year old trying to understand the easy yoke of Jesus). I grew up in a PCA church (that I was …
Wyatt, thank you for this charitable piece. I'm 25, and have been deeply influenced by Comer over the past 5 or so years. I read his 'The Ruthless Elimination Of Hurry' a couple of years ago and it was deeply helpful (for a distracted/anxious 20 year old trying to understand the easy yoke of Jesus). I grew up in a PCA church (that I was not very fond of for a long time), and have found much solace in people like Comer who have preach what I find to be a deeply practical theology.
That being said, I had a bit of a pit in my stomach while reading this. That is what happens I think when someone has a thoughtful critique of one of your heroes!
On immutability, I wonder if this is an issue of definitions? I have been confused by immutability because it seems to be a favorite for reformers, but scripture seems to raise questions for it.
I feel frustrated with how loudly folks brandish immutability without also affirming the other moments of God's responding to his children.
Ie.
Genesis 18 Abraham pleading with God for Sodom and Gomorrah
2 Kings 20 where Hezekiah pleas directly against God's word to him, and God grants him his wish.
Or even Mark 6 where Jesus intends/wills (Abbott-Smith, 204) to pass by the disciples then decides to meet them.
I bring those examples up all as moments where the scriptures do not seem to be prioritizing God's immutability. Again, I am advocating for a both/and that you mentioned, and have benefitted much from people delving into these moments of God's seemingly pliability. Maybe this is an issue of nature vs expression. I don't know if those are the right terms, for instance, God is love in his essence. He cannot not be love. He is unchangeable. But he can change His mind how He is responding to particular moments without ever weakening his unchanging essence?
I suppose the place where I take most exception in your piece is when you said, "In other words, the word relation refers to the ineffable relation between the Father and Son through a relation of eternal generation that has no psychological meaning."
I may just need your help understanding this because this to me is where you most misunderstand Comer too. I guess to be incredibly blunt, to say that the eternal relationship of the trinity has "no psychological meaning" is denying the imago dei in humanity. I think for Comer it is the fact that God is relational within himself that so greatly informs how we relate to him and to one another. Though I do see where it seems he takes an almost casual approach to how we can participate in this "inner life of God" which your examples made a strong case for.
Okay, those are some thoughts, I'd love to hear from you, and I hope I have reflected the same charity you humbly showed in your article.
God is unchangeable in his essence, purposes and perfections. First, we have to understand that if we deny God's immutability, then that necessarily denies the perfections in his knowledge and wisdom which then denies his perfection in omnipotence at which point we know longer have God, but a pantheistic notion of a god. Moreover, if he's not immutable in all of his divine purposes, then what are we doing placing our hope in a god who changes just like his creatures do? God is never becoming, never increasing or decreasing (especially in knowledge or power), but is always what he is and his intentions are infinite and perfect.
What you are referring to is immutability vs immobility. The use of anthropocentric language is all over the Bible yet we have to understand that in the context of the clearly divine and transcendent nature of God that Scripture also vehemently affirms. In the Scripture you referenced, it is not God who's changing, but man. To deny that is to deny God's omniscience and once you do that, you no longer have a God capable of being the Alpha and Omega.
This is ultimately the problem with Comer's view of God which denies God's decretive function of God's will. Once you deny one aspect, such as God's immutable decretive will, then you necessarily have to deny the other aspects such as perfect and absolute knowledge, wisdom, infinity, and power to do all that he pleases. This results in a god who cannot possibly be a creator of anything and at that point we are no longer talking about Christianity.
Wyatt, thank you for this charitable piece. I'm 25, and have been deeply influenced by Comer over the past 5 or so years. I read his 'The Ruthless Elimination Of Hurry' a couple of years ago and it was deeply helpful (for a distracted/anxious 20 year old trying to understand the easy yoke of Jesus). I grew up in a PCA church (that I was not very fond of for a long time), and have found much solace in people like Comer who have preach what I find to be a deeply practical theology.
That being said, I had a bit of a pit in my stomach while reading this. That is what happens I think when someone has a thoughtful critique of one of your heroes!
On immutability, I wonder if this is an issue of definitions? I have been confused by immutability because it seems to be a favorite for reformers, but scripture seems to raise questions for it.
I feel frustrated with how loudly folks brandish immutability without also affirming the other moments of God's responding to his children.
Ie.
Genesis 18 Abraham pleading with God for Sodom and Gomorrah
2 Kings 20 where Hezekiah pleas directly against God's word to him, and God grants him his wish.
Or even Mark 6 where Jesus intends/wills (Abbott-Smith, 204) to pass by the disciples then decides to meet them.
I bring those examples up all as moments where the scriptures do not seem to be prioritizing God's immutability. Again, I am advocating for a both/and that you mentioned, and have benefitted much from people delving into these moments of God's seemingly pliability. Maybe this is an issue of nature vs expression. I don't know if those are the right terms, for instance, God is love in his essence. He cannot not be love. He is unchangeable. But he can change His mind how He is responding to particular moments without ever weakening his unchanging essence?
I suppose the place where I take most exception in your piece is when you said, "In other words, the word relation refers to the ineffable relation between the Father and Son through a relation of eternal generation that has no psychological meaning."
I may just need your help understanding this because this to me is where you most misunderstand Comer too. I guess to be incredibly blunt, to say that the eternal relationship of the trinity has "no psychological meaning" is denying the imago dei in humanity. I think for Comer it is the fact that God is relational within himself that so greatly informs how we relate to him and to one another. Though I do see where it seems he takes an almost casual approach to how we can participate in this "inner life of God" which your examples made a strong case for.
Okay, those are some thoughts, I'd love to hear from you, and I hope I have reflected the same charity you humbly showed in your article.
All from a young student,
William
God is unchangeable in his essence, purposes and perfections. First, we have to understand that if we deny God's immutability, then that necessarily denies the perfections in his knowledge and wisdom which then denies his perfection in omnipotence at which point we know longer have God, but a pantheistic notion of a god. Moreover, if he's not immutable in all of his divine purposes, then what are we doing placing our hope in a god who changes just like his creatures do? God is never becoming, never increasing or decreasing (especially in knowledge or power), but is always what he is and his intentions are infinite and perfect.
What you are referring to is immutability vs immobility. The use of anthropocentric language is all over the Bible yet we have to understand that in the context of the clearly divine and transcendent nature of God that Scripture also vehemently affirms. In the Scripture you referenced, it is not God who's changing, but man. To deny that is to deny God's omniscience and once you do that, you no longer have a God capable of being the Alpha and Omega.
This is ultimately the problem with Comer's view of God which denies God's decretive function of God's will. Once you deny one aspect, such as God's immutable decretive will, then you necessarily have to deny the other aspects such as perfect and absolute knowledge, wisdom, infinity, and power to do all that he pleases. This results in a god who cannot possibly be a creator of anything and at that point we are no longer talking about Christianity.