Unqualified divine simplicity not only contradicts the central christological and trinitarian distinctions but it also renders implausible any positive relation between God and world, God and time.

Charles Haddon Spurgeon's, The Immutability of God, will inspire and challenge you. Listen to Spurgeon: I know nothing which can so comfort the soul, so calm the swelling billows of grief and sorrow-so speak peace to the winds of trial-as a devout musing upon the subject of the Godhead. It is to that subject that I invite you this morning. We shall present you with one view of it-that is the immutability of the glorious Jehovah. "I am," says my text, "Jehovah," (for so it should be translated) "I am Jehovah, I change not; therefore you sons of Jacob are not consumed."

Unknown to many, increasing numbers of conservative evangelicals are denying basic tenets of classical Christian teaching about God, with departures occurring even among those of the Calvinistic persuasion. James E. Dolezal’s All That Is in God provides an exposition of the historic Christian position while engaging with these contemporary deviations. His convincing critique of the newer position he styles “theistic mutualism” is philosophically robust, systematically nuanced, and biblically based. It demonstrates the need to maintain the traditional viewpoint, particularly on divine simplicity, and spotlights the unfortunate implications for other important Christian doctrines—such as divine eternality and the Trinity—if it were to be abandoned. Arguing carefully and cogently that “all that is in God is God Himself,” the work is sure to stimulate debate on the issue in years to come.

This study shows how the trinitarian theology of Hans Urs von Balthasar opens up an aproach to the controverted question of God's immutability and impassibility which succeeds in respecting both the transcendence and the immanence of God. Contrary to both Process thought and the classical Thomist position, von Balthasar's scattered treatment is here presented thematically, in a way which makes it clear that his idea of an analogous event in the trinitarian God (in which we participate) is a radical reinterpretation of the traditional Christian axiom of divine immutability. In the course of outlining the distinctiveness of von Balthasar's approach, O'Hanlon introduces the reader to some of the fundamental themes of one of the major Roman Catholic theologians of this century, who is still relatively unknown in the English-speaking world.

The Unchanging God of Love provides a clear and comprehensive account of what Aquinas really says about divine immutability, presented in a way that allows his theology to address contemporary criticisms

God is sovereign. God is perfect. God is immutable. God created everything. God is triune. The Son of God was incarnate in Jesus Christ. The essential tenets of classical theism regarding the doctrine of God can be stated fairly easily. However, questions have been raised regarding the coherence of these beliefs taken as a whole. Some have seen fit to abandon classical theism. Others have acknowledged tensions in the traditional concept of God and have sought to resolve them by means of making significant concessions. Jay Wesley Richards believes that classical theism with its biblical norm can and ought to be maintained. He shows how a philosophical defense, using the analytical tools of modal logic, can be mounted that preserves traditional Christian beliefs. Richards astutely defends essentialism, arguing that it is both intrinsic to the Christian understanding of God and preserves the contingency of creation and the God-world relation. To further clarify and defend his proposal he engages appreciatively and critically the thought of Karl Barth and Charles Hartshorne as well as addressing the related and currently debated matters of divine simplicity and immutability.

In this volume, Richard Creel sets forth a thesis that offers a third way to approach divine impassibility. Defining impassibility as imperviousness to causal influence from external factors, Creel sketches a path between Aquinas and Hartshorne, by asserting that once this definition is accepted, one must still distinguish the various respects in which God is or is not impassible. Virtually no one would dispute that the divine nature is impassible. God will never cease to be God, no matter what happens in creation. With respect to the divine knowledge and will, however, there are conflicting views. Creel claims that God's will is impassible because God knows everything that can be accomplished by divine power. Yet, unlike Aquinas, Creel believes that God has this knowledge in virtue of a 'plenum' of possibilities eternally coexistent with the divine being. The absolute is not simply God, but rather God plus the 'plenum'. Creel suggests that God's knowledge is passible with respect to the contingent future actions of creatures. God knows these actions, therefore, not in their presentiality from all eternity, as Aquinas would hold, but only as they happen and become actual. God's will, however, remains immediately impassible because the divine will is ordered to possibilities, not actualities. God never has to wait until after we do something in order to decide his response to it. He has eternally decided his response to all that we might do. Ultimately God's feelings remain impassible, no matter what concrete decisions human beings make, because the basic intent of the divine plan for us is always achieved: we exercise our freedom to choose for or against God. God is impassible with respect to the divine nature, divine will, and divine feelings; but God is passible with respect to the divine knowledge of future contingent events.