Confessing Divine Impassibility

Jonaitis · Nov 17, 2022

Impassibility (from Latin in-, "not", passibilis, "able to suffer, experience emotion") describes the theological doctrine that God does not experience pain or pleasure from the actions of another being. It has often been seen as a consequence of divine aseity, the idea that God is absolutely independent of any other being, i.e., in no way causally dependent. Being affected (literally made to have a certain emotion, affect) by the state or actions of another would seem to imply causal dependence.

Do you believe that God is impassable? Feel free to vote and/or explain.

Petros2015 · Nov 17, 2022

I feel like it would be difficult to create something that feels something if you didn't feel anything. The premise seems to suggest that God is incapable of empathy, which I think might put the Created on a plane higher than the Creator. This would be odd, especially in the face of scriptures - "God is love" "we love because He first loved us" and similar.

That being said, I think God is a great deal more Actionary than Reactionary. But this isn't the same as impassable.

Jonaitis · Nov 17, 2022

Petros2015 said:
I feel like it would be difficult to create something that feels something if you didn't feel anything.

Doesn't 'feeling' imply a change in God?

Jonaitis · Nov 17, 2022

Petros2015 said:
I feel like it would be difficult to create something that feels something if you didn't feel anything. The premise seems to suggest that God is incapable of empathy, which I think might put the Created on a plain higher than the Creator. This would be odd, especially in the face of scriptures - "God is love" "we love because He first loved us" and similar.

Is it possible that God is pure act? It would be better stated that "love" is who He is, not what He actually has, like a set of qualities that fluctuate emotionally?

Philip_B · Nov 17, 2022

The Thirty-Nine Articles seem to imply impassibility in the 1st Article.

I. Of Faith in the Holy Trinity.

There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the Maker, and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible. And in the unity of this Godhead, there be three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

Nonetheless, scripture has many examples where that sense of impassibility is augmented. In the account of creation, we have the sense of God surveying his work and perceiving it to be very good, in the account of Jonah we have the sense of God repenting, and in the Gospel of John, we see that Jesus wept.

In a sense, I feel this is a reflection of the dialogue between the Transcendence of God and the Immanence of God. We have a need for an understanding of both, and the dynamic tension between them both.

public hermit · Nov 17, 2022

I believe God is immutable, but by that I simply mean God is always God and never not God. If it weren't for the incarnation, I would be more confident about divine impassability. The alpha-privatives of the early church were the result of the significant influence of platonism/neoplatonism, which I'm not opposed to, but those schools of thought did not envision the incarnation. Besides, the end result of describing God via alpha-privatives is the ultimate inscrutability of the divine essence. So, to say God is impassable, without qualification, is to define the inscrutable.

It does no good to say only Christ's human nature was subject to change and suffering. The person suffered, and that person was divine/human. I think what makes more sense is to say God experienced all that Christ experienced without losing a modicum of divinity in the process. In other words, no matter what happens, God is immutable, since God is always God and never not-God. In short, I don't know, and I'm fine with that lol.

Jonaitis · Nov 17, 2022

Philip_B said:
The Thirty-Nine Articles seem to imply impassibility in the 1st Article.

I. Of Faith in the Holy Trinity.
There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the Maker, and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

Nonetheless, scripture has many examples where that sense of impassibility is augmented. In the account of creation, we have the sense of God surveying his work and perceiving t to be very good, in the account of Jonah we have the sense of God repenting, and in the Gospel of John we see that Jesus wept.

In a sense, I feel this is a reflection of the dialogue between the Transcendence of God and the Immanence of God. We have a need for an understanding of both, and the dynamic tension between them both.

You're right, it is a dialogue between transcendency and immanency, which are two sides of the same coin.

I would argue that calling something "good" doesn't imply a change in God's immutability, but a necessary example of what God sees as good.

Jonaitis · Nov 17, 2022

public hermit said:
I believe God is immutable, but by that I simply mean God is always God and never not God. If it weren't for the incarnation, I would be more confident about divine impassability. The alpha-privatives of the early church were the result of the significant influence of platonism/neoplatonism, which I'm not opposed to, but those schools of thought did not envision the incarnation. Besides, the end result of describing God via alpha-privatives is the ultimate inscrutability of the divine essence. So, to say God is impassable, without qualification, is to define the inscrutable.

It does no good to say only Christ's human nature was subject to change and suffering. The person suffered, and that person was divine/human. I think what makes more sense is to say God experienced all that Christ experienced without losing a modicum of divinity in the process. In other words, no matter what happens, God is immutable, since God is always God and never not-God. In short, I don't know, and I'm fine with that lol.

What is "alpha-privatives"? I'm unfamiliar with the term.

I probably agree with your point. What if the problem lies in the language calling members of the Godhead as 'persons'? I'm more in favor of calling the Godhead modus entitativus or Seinsweise (mode of being), so that Christ's divinity is not reduced to particulars, but nonetheless is still implied. Christ is God and man, not in one person, but in one experience (though unaffecting the Godhood itself). This may change the language of the creeds.

public hermit · Nov 17, 2022

Jonaitis said:
What is "alpha-privatives"? I'm unfamiliar with the term.

I probably agree with your point. What if the problem lies in the language calling members of the Godhead as 'persons'? I'm more in favor of calling the Godhead modus entitativus (mode of being), so that Christ's divinity is not reduced to particulars, but nonetheless is still implied. Christ is God and man, not in one person, but in one experience (though unaffecting the Godhood itself). This may change the language of the creeds.

In Greek, placing an alpha before a word negates it, much like in English, e.g., theism/atheism. The Cappadocians, for instance, would describe divine attributes with a string of attributes, each negated with an alpha, passability being one of them. This is apophatic theology at its finest, but it leads to inscrutability. If God is ultimately inscrutable, then what can we really say?

I think you're probably right about speaking in terms of divine "persons," which was brought into the discussion by Latin speakers vs. the Greek hypostases.

On the one hand, it's strange to think of God as being passable. Passability seems so intimately connected to embodiment and physical corruptability. On the other, God has created this world where changability and suffering are so integral to embodied existence. Certainly, God knew this would be the case. So how can God know what God does not know?

I reject the notion that God is pure act, simpliciter. Sorry, Aristotle. Pace Nyssa, the second "Person" is eternally generated from the first and, as Jesus says, he only does what he sees the Father doing. That's pure potential eternally activated by pure act. Perhaps, act and potentiality are aspects of the Godhead. So, perhaps, both impassability and passability are aspects of God. So long as God is always God, passability is not a problem. It only becomes a problem when passability causes God to be or do what God would not be or do, which is what the traditional account of divine attributes has assumed passability would do.

Just think what it means for God to become human in time and space. That's a change no matter how you cut it.

Gregory Thompson · Nov 17, 2022

No. Because The Father regretted creating before starting the flood. The Holy Spirit can be grieved. When Lazarus died, Jesus wept.

disciple Clint · Nov 17, 2022

Jonaitis said:
Do you believe that God is impassable? Feel free to vote and/or explain.

Does John 3:16 mean what it says? If we believe that it does then God experience love, Does God hate sin, if He does then God can experience both sides of human emotion. When Jesus looked at the man and loved him did He experience compassion?

Gregory Thompson · Nov 17, 2022

I am reminded of how God acted around the Hebrews in Moses' day.

When the people sinned/acted on their mood disorders in His presence, the plagues were immediate.

This illustrates that God is affected by human emotion.

We're At The Ark · Nov 17, 2022

Sorry you guys but I don't get why is this even coming up.
Scripture plainly states that people can please God and that people can displease God.
That people can make Him angry, sad, disappointed. That He can love. And just the opposite.

Jonaitis · Nov 17, 2022

public hermit said:
In Greek, placing an alpha before a word negates it, much like in English, e.g., theism/atheism. The Cappadocians, for instance, would describe divine attributes with a string of attributes, each negated with an alpha, passability being one of them. This is apophatic theology at its finest, but it leads to inscrutability. If God is ultimately inscrutable, then what can we really say?

I think you're probably right about speaking in terms of divine "persons," which was brought into the discussion by Latin speakers vs. the Greek hypostases.

On the one hand, it's strange to think of God as being passable. Passability seems so intimately connected to embodiment and physical corruptability. On the other, God has created this world where changability and suffering are so integral to embodied existence. Certainly, God knew this would be the case. So how can God know what God does not know?

I reject the notion that God is pure act, simpliciter. Sorry, Aristotle. Pace Nyssa, the second "Person" is eternally generated from the first and, as Jesus says, he only does what he sees the Father doing. That's pure potential eternally activated by pure act. Perhaps, act and potentiality are aspects of the Godhead. So, perhaps, both impassability and passability are aspects of God. So long as God is always God, passability is not a problem. It only becomes a problem when passability causes God to be or do what God would not be or do, which is what the traditional account of divine attributes has assumed passability would do.

Just think what it means for God to become human in time and space. That's a change no matter how you cut it.

Interesting. I agree with much of the Cappadocian language, thus my position of mode of being. It seems to make more sense. Describing God as having "personalities" implies distinct self-conscious entities.

But, you see, we must distinguish the nature of this world, which is passible, from the Creator Himself. If He is passible like His creation, then He cannot be holy, that is, set apart. He would be bound by the same reasoning of what He created.

The problem I see with calling them aspects is implying that God is an interchanging being that can mediate between the two. It would be more proper for me to say that God is the overarching principle of both (not this, not that), but Christ is the organic unity of both (truly this, truly that).

It wouldn't be, then, that God really became human, as language can only carry us so far, but that God participated as human in the same way of creation. A subtle difference in my view.

Jonaitis · Nov 17, 2022

Michael Collum said:
No. Because The Father regretted creating before starting the flood. The Holy Spirit can be grieved.

Anthropomorphism: attributing human qualities to God's operative action("s").

Jonaitis · Nov 17, 2022

We're At The Ark said:
Sorry you guys but I don't get why is this even coming up.
Scripture plainly states that people can please God and that people can displease God.
That people can make Him angry, sad, disappointed. That He can love. And just the opposite.

Is God so swayed by the ways of His creation? Or could it be simply language that makes the Divine relatable to human experience?

Jonaitis · Nov 17, 2022

disciple Clint said:
Does John 3:16 mean what it says? If we believe that it does then God experience love, Does God hate sin, if He does then God can experience both sides of human emotion. When Jesus looked at the man and loved him did He experience compassion?

Explain John 3:16, then.

I would see 'love' in that instance, not as an emotional response, but a service/action.

public hermit · Nov 17, 2022

Jonaitis said:
The problem I see with calling them aspects is implying that God is an interchanging being that can mediate between the two. It would be more proper for me to say that God is the overarching principle of both (not this, not that), but Christ is the organic unity of both (truly this, truly that)

Okay, I like that. That makes sense.

Jonaitis said:
It wouldn't be, then, that God really became human, as language can only carry us so far, but that God participated as human. A subtle difference.

That does, too.

We're At The Ark · Nov 17, 2022

Jonaitis said:
Is God so swayed by the ways of His creation? Or could it be simply language that makes the Divine relatable to human experience?

He did it the way He wants it, an interactive reality that He participates in with us.
So yes, He does want to relate to us. And it is reality.

Jonaitis · Nov 17, 2022

We're At The Ark said:
He did it the way He wants it, an interactive reality that He participates in with us.
So yes, He does want to relate to us. And it is reality.

It is reality for the Creator to be provoked like a man by the actions of man? Is His thoughts and ways not higher than ours? Is He so prone to the temptations of Satan's devices? Has sin become His mental slave master, toying with His heart?

Confessing Divine Impassibility

Do you believe God is impassible?

Yes

No

Maybe

Who cares?

Option 4

Soli Deo Gloria

Well-Known Member

Soli Deo Gloria

Soli Deo Gloria

Bread is Blessed & Broken Wine is Blessed & Poured

social troglodyte

Soli Deo Gloria

Soli Deo Gloria

social troglodyte

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Well-Known Member

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Member

Soli Deo Gloria

Soli Deo Gloria

Soli Deo Gloria

Soli Deo Gloria

social troglodyte

Member

Soli Deo Gloria

Similar threads