Confessing Divine Impassibility

[Xeno.of.athens]

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

Is God X? In this case X is impassable.

God is a mystery, his nature is mysterious, his existence is mysterious, the same applies to his knowledge, his compassion, love, justice, and virtually any other attribute that can be named and all of the attributes that cannot be named. In short, every attempt to define God comprehensively, even if it is only in one tiny area of knowledge, will fail. It fails because no creature is God and hence no creature knows God, Christ alone excepted.

Scripture says God repents, is angered, loves, hates, and a number of other things. The thread's original post asks, "Is God impassable?" Maybe the best advice is "let all mortal flesh keep silence" because the one of whom we write is God and no creature - he is not subject to our vocabulary.

 

[We're At The Ark]

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?

To me those are not valid questions. Scripture explains what exists as the operative reality of how God interacts to us.

 

[disciple Clint]

Explain John 3:16, then.

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

Love is not an emotion????

 

[Jonaitis]

Love is not an emotion????

Biblically? No, it is not. Affection is.

God's love is His good toward us in Christ.

 

[We're At The Ark]

I think I'll stick with what God said.
So long.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

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

That literary term tends to apply to literature that applies human characteristics to animals.

God made both male and female in His Image and Likeness, Jesus incarnated as an actual human, it actually fits here.

It wouldn't fit for say ... hinduism.

 

[Jonaitis]

That literary term tends to apply to literature that applies human characteristics to animals.

The term is also a well-attested concept in the study of theology proper.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

The term is also a well-attested concept in theology proper.

So you're building a bridge to deny that God one in three persons?

 

[Jonaitis]

So you're building a bridge to deny that God one in three persons?

No.

Where did that come from?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

No.

Where did that come from?

Well, you seem to be saying with your theology that it is impossible for God to be a person.

 

[Jonaitis]

Well, you seem to be saying with your theology that it is impossible for God to be a person.

I agree with the Cappadocian definition of the Trinity. 'Person' is not a very good descriptor to distinguish the members of the Godhead. However, I do not severe the distinction of each. Subsistence is possibly also a better term (that is, in relation to substance).

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I agree with the Cappadocian definition of the Trinity. 'Person' is not a very good descriptor to distinguish the members of the Godhead. However, I do not severe the distinction of each. Subsistence is a better term.

Jesus was born as a human though, that's a basic, even from the creeds.

 

[Jonaitis]

Jesus was born as a human though, that's a basic, even from the creeds.

Jesus is human. I agree.

God's nature is not human. Thus, all personal finite descriptions of God are human descriptions.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Jesus is human. I agree.

God's nature is not human. Thus, all personal finite descriptions of God are human descriptions.

In the beginning God created humans in His image and likeness. So, is the creation account being interpreted figuratively here?

 

[Jonaitis]

In the beginning God created humans in His image and likeness. So, is the creation account being interpreted figuratively here?

The image and likeness is the figurative of the real and true.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

The image and likeness is the figurative of the real and true.

Jesus said while human, that if have seen me, then you have seen my father also.

 

[Jonaitis]

Jesus said while human, that if have seen me, then you have seen my father also.

The Son reveals the Father. He is the expression, word, image, radiance, revelation, etc., of God. This is His role. If you witness the Son, then you are witnessing the Father, for the Son is the showing forth of the Father. So tightly unified, they share in the work. Jesus' ministry is the Father conveying Himself. If you see Jesus, you see the Father at work in Him.

At least, this is how I've always understood it. It has nothing to do with human nature.

 

[Bob Crowley]

I think the concept of God's impassibility owes its origin to Greek philosophy, not Christian theology.

Early Christian theologians were operating within a Greek intellectual climate, and they took this on board.

I don't agree with it. I think God feels emotions - anger, joy and sorrow for example. In the parable of the prodigal son, Christ implies that God is overjoyed when he sees a prodigal son or daughter returning to him.

We all know about the threat of God's wrath.

I'm not convinced of God's "impassibility".

 

[Jonaitis]

I think the concept of God's impassibility owes its origin to Greek philosophy, not Christian theology.

Early Christian theologians were operating within a Greek intellectual climate, and they took this on board.

I don't agree with it. I think God feels emotions - anger, joy and sorrow for example. In the parable of the prodigal son, Christ implies that God is overjoyed when he sees a prodigal son or daughter returning to him.

We all know about the threat of God's wrath.

I'm not convinced of God's "impassibility".

I can't be convinced that God can literally have emotional outbursts or regret something he could've prevented. It is just not my kind of God, but then again, not everyone's view of God is the same.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

The Son reveals the Father. He is the expression, word, image, radiance, revelation, etc., of God. This is His role. If you witness the Son, then you are witnessing the Father, for the Son is the showing forth of the Father. So tightly unified, they share in the work. Jesus' ministry is the Father conveying Himself. If you see Jesus, you see the Father at work in Him.

At least, this is how I've always understood it. It has nothing to do with human nature.

I'm not sure how old this impassibility doctrine is, but I'm not convinced it is a good fit for Christian teachings.

I looked up the definition again and it reminded me of a few verses.

"What is the doctrine of divine Impassibility?

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."

Hebrews 11 states that without faith it is impossible to please God. Therefore, it is established that God does experience pleasure based on the actions of other beings. Other passages expressing hurt can be found in the prophets where God speaks to Israel as an unfaithful wife in various places.