Timotheos
Puritan Board Freshman
Impassibility isn't a pet issue. If it is, then clearly you haven't read the Nicene fathers. To deny impassibility was an anathema. Pet that doctrine and it'll bite ya back!Naw....there are bigger debates. All parties represented within this debate are Christians and not heretics. The debate is not over open theism or God being like one of the Greek pantheon of emotional and petty minor gods, but all parties speak of God as immutable, they merely differ in how that plays out and what that looks like. Potentially any fanatic can elevate his pet issue or theological hobby-horse to the forefront. Dr. Oliphant is no Arius or Pelagius.
The modern Reformed Baptist movement, for example, is elevating a few pet issues to the forefront at the same time as neglecting weightier matters, such as child abuse. People and groups can be imbalanced and focused out-of-proportion (fixated) on some issues, while neglecting others.
Two examples: (1) I once heard a brother say baptism was not a 2ndary doctrine but primary because it consisted of the means of grace. And he focused on the error of baptismal regeneration. (2) I had another brother mention that bible versons were not a 2ndary issue but a matter to divide over since the Bible was the Word of God. And the Word of God is primary, right. But the issues at stake were means of baptism and KJV or NIV...not baptismal regeneraton and not inerrancy.
We can all make our minor theological hobby-horse as THE battle to be fight in our time, if we lose a broader perspective. And that is what many have done on this issue of impassibility.