Dolezal, James. All That is in God: Evangelical Theology and the Challenge of Classical Christian Theism. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2017.
Introduction and Method
James Dolezal’s intention in his All That Is In God is to defend and retrieve Classical Christian Theism. He will explain this term below. This work is a study of theology proper, or the doctrine of God. Dolezal is the Professor of Theology at Cairn University in Langhorne, PA. He lectures at Cairn’s School of Divinity and the International Reformed Baptist Seminary in Mansfield, TX—since 2013 and 2019, respectively. Dolezal completed his BA, MA, and MDiv at the Master’s University and Seminary (formerly, The Master’s College). He also earned his ThM in 2007 and a PhD in 2011 at Westminster Theological Seminary. Dolezal’s dissertation topic was about divine simplicity and divine absoluteness.
Adding to his educational background, he has authored and contributed chapters on the themes of theology proper, such as divine impassibility in Classical Theism, divine simplicity, Trinity and divine simplicity in On Classical Trinitarianism, and divine immutability.[1] Likewise, with similar topics, Dolezal presented as the keynote address at the plenary session of the Evangelical Theological Society Easter Region in 2018. Lastly, he is a Reformed Baptist.
Although Dolezal’s structure in All That Is In God is theological and philosophical, his method is polemical and contemplative. The former focuses on defending Classical Christian Theism against the proponents of Theistic Mutualism, Open Theism, and Process Theology; the latter emphasizes God-talk with a deep theological contemplation revealed through nature and the Scriptures. However, while the terms being used and God-talk of his attributes cannot be univocal since God and humanity have infinite distinction, yet through revelation, it can be truly known but not exhaustively.
Classical Christian Theism vs Theistic Mutualism
Dolezal starts by describing Classic Christian Theism or Traditional Christian Orthodoxy as faithfully embodying the doctrinal stand affirming the Nicene Creed and prominent Reformed Confessions, which are found in the teachings of Augustine, Athanasius, Anselm, and Aquinas, then extends to John Calvin, John Owen, Stephen Charnock, and Herman Bavinck. Classical theism teaches and affirms the divine simplicity, immutability, aseity, impassibility, eternity, and substantial unity of the divine persons. This doctrine of God has been challenged throughout the centuries, especially beginning from the Enlightenment era, as Dolezal argues.
Modern innovation and theological attempts to contrast the classical theistic position are called theistic mutualism or theistic personalism. In a short description, theistic mutualism affirms the possibility of a changeable God ontologically for the sake of relating to His creation. There is a give-and-take relationship between the Creator and the creature. Although the stronger versions of theistic mutualism are evident in Open Theism and Process Theology, Dolezal focuses on the modified, softer, and weaker approaches of theistic mutualism. Hence, he claims these subtle versions are more dangerous since they are harder to distinguish and mostly come from the same theological traditions (i.e., the Reformed Calvinist tradition). The rest of the chapters circle this theme of how theistic mutualism threatens Christian theological orthodoxy.
The first attribute that Dolezal discusses is divine immutability. Why? The reason behind this is because of the strong emphasis of Open and Process theologians on the possibility of mutability in divine ontology. He furthers from these vital points that softer, modified versions of this mutability exist. There are theologians who affirm the both-and of divine immutability ontologically and mutability due to the relationship with the creature through sovereignty, partly mutable, and relatively. Against this claim of theistic mutualists, Dolezal offers biblical passages of divine immutability and theological-philosophical defense through divine aseity, pure actuality, and simplicity—which extends in the following two chapters. Indeed, Dolezal rejects the Open theist’s notion that a simple, immutable God is a weaker, imperfect, and passive Creator. He argues that since the God of Classical Christian Theism is simple, immutable, and independent, hope for humanity is more robust, real, and dependable.
The whole argument cycles that since God lacks nothing, that He is absolutely perfect—divine aseity—then there is no change necessary in his being and necessitates his simplicity and pure actuality—there is no potentiality or becoming in his being, nor parts or compound. As Dolezal argues, this classical thought is due to a disregard, denial, and distortion of divine simplicity, as Dolezal argues. He traces back to the Enlightenment elevation of efficient causality and material causation over formal causes, substantial and accidental, and final causes—like Immanuel Kant’s denial of transcendental ideals and David Hume’s skepticism that everything is mere speculation. However, through divine revelation, divine essence can be truly known but not exhaustively—the reason is either God’s accommodation to his creation or the creature’s anthropomorphism. In conclusion, any claim of mutability leads to creating parts, division, or compound-essence in God; hence, a disregard, denial, and distortion of divine simplicity.
After proposing the retrieval of divine simplicity and immutability—which are inseparable from divine aseity, pure actuality, and absolute perfection, Dolezal continues with divine eternality which is also rejected by theistic mutualists. Likewise, Dolezal grounds from divine infinity—cannot be measured, immutability—nothing can be added or removed, and simplicity—denying any parts or dimensions in God, for defending the doctrine of divine eternality. There are no before-and-after moments in God. For theistic mutualism, the eternality seems to be a barrier that hinders God from acting and relating to the created world. However, the act of creating is eternal since it is pure actuality, but the created is temporal. God is the eternal Creator of a temporal creation. Creatorhood exists eternally in his being, and the name Creator is a relative title revealed in the manner and event for human comprehension. Finally, Dolezal discusses the threat of social trinitarianism and its different versions. The same path previously that he utilized. Divine simplicity and immutability challenge the view of social trinitarianism because they began with perichoretic relations or ad intra over divine ontology.
A Critical Review
Dolezal’s work is highly recommended and must be read by pastors, theologians, seminary professors, and Bible school students. It is not an easy read, especially for those unfamiliar with theological terms of the doctrine of God. The coherency of his work is excellent. It seems like there is a natural flow of his argument overlapping and weaving different attributes of God, and it still ends with a solid conclusion for divine simplicity—which Dolezal recognizes as “the indispensable centerpiece in the ‘grammar’ regulating theology proper” or against theistic mutualism (38). For example, defending divine eternality through the attributes of infinity, immutability, and simplicity. By having this approach, Dolezal implies that one attribute cannot be divorced from the other since all that is in God is God. His existence is his being is his simplicity is his immutability is his aseity is his infinity is his eternality. Nevertheless, it is commendable that Dolezal makes sure that there are definitions right after introducing a theological term for his readers, including but not limited to Open Theism, social Trinitarianism, and perichoresis. It can help the readers recall specific terms they have heard or read years ago.
Dolezal’s polemics are convincing and make the reader more curious and interested in the matter. However, there are substantial name droppings. It could have been better to provide background and context for every author and the works mentioned by Dolezal rather than just citing block quotes or statements. While there is an assumption that Dolezal’s integrity is not to name an author without proper research —evident in his content footnotes—and evidence, it is necessary to assume that the readers do not have the same level of information. These names are prominent personalities in the field of theology, e.g., Ronald Nash, D. A. Carson, J. I. Packer, John Frame, Kevin Vanhoozer, Karl Barth, John Feinberg, and especially Bruce Ware. Lastly, with just a glimpse of observation, Dolezal attempts to be truly relevant by engaging in a critical issue during the Trinity Debate beginning in 2016. Specifically, he ends the book by pointing out the theological threat of Eternal Functional Subordination (EFS) in divine ontology—either it proposes parts in the divine being due to different roles of the Trinitarian persons or leads toward social Trinitarianism. That said, since Dolezal published this work in 2017, there is a need to have an updated revision of how the debate concluded, add several of his reflections or reactions, and deal with those who responded to Dolezal’s namedrops. The updated edition can also be included in the celebration of 1700 years of the Nicene Creed.
[1] James Dolezal, “Defending Divine Impassibility,” in Classical Theism: New Essays on the Metaphysics of God, eds., Jonathan Fuqua and Robert C. Koons (New York and London: Routledge, 2023) and Dolezal, “Strong Impassibility,” in Divine Impassibility: Four Views of God’s Emotions and Suffering, eds., Robert J. Matz and A. Chadwick Thornhill (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2019). Also, Dolezal, “Trinity and Divine Simplicity,” in On Classical Trinitarianism: Retrieving the Nicene Doctrine of the Triune God, ed., Matthew Barrett (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2024).
John&Paul's Reflections 
One thought on “[Book Review] James Dolezal, All That is in God”