About a year ago I came across an article by Daniel Castelo recommending the doctrine of divine impassibility to Pentecostals (the question of whether God has passion, often focusing on whether or not God can suffer). I wrote a response that was just published. Thanks to Brill’s (a publisher) relatively recent and generous change to their author agreements, you can download the final published version of the article here.
Abstract: This article responds to Daniel Castelo’s recent recommendation of the doctrine of divine impassibility to Pentecostals. In contrast to Castelo’s proposal, this article argues that Pentecostals are justified in dropping the term ‘impassibility’, and, moreover, that Pentecostals have a pneumatological reason for affirming divine passibility implicit within their spirituality of speaking in tongues.
Keywords: Divine Impassibility, Passibility, Speaking in Tongues, Holy Spirit, Doctrine of God
Hello, yup this article is genuinely fastidious and I have
learned lot of things from it regarding blogging. thanks.