Confessing Divine Impassibility

[Lost Witness]

Leviticus 26:11

 

[JAL]

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

An impassible God could not have suffered the cross. And, prior to that, His holiness would fail to merit praise. Here's the only viable definition of merit (and the cross is a good example of it):

Merit is a status attained by freely choosing to labor/suffer for a righteous cause over an extended period of time.

Therefore He must have acquired His holiness gradually, by laboring/suffering over time. (Naturally I'm an Old Earth Creationist).

 

[friend of]

If God is impassible, wouldn't that make Him indifferent towards us? How can He love us if He's indifferent?

 

[Philip_B]

If God is impassible, wouldn't that make Him indifferent towards us? How can He love us if He's indifferent?

That is not quite correct. Impassability suggests that God does not love us more or less dependent on our response to him. This is a John 3:16 truth 'God so loved the world'

 

[friend of]

That is not quite correct. Impassability suggests that God does not love us more or less dependent on our response to him. This is a John 3:16 truth 'God so loved the world'

I disagree. Those who have faith are children of God. They are closer to Him than the heathen and atheists.

 

[Philip_B]

I disagree. Those who have faith are children of God. They are closer to Him than the heathen and atheists.

I think you don't quite understand the point. God loves every one of us, absolutely. God does not love Christians more than other sinners. Those who turn to Christ, who repent of their sins, who renounce evil, are called to shine as a light in the world to the Glory of God the Father, are certainly Children of God, however, if we believe in the fatherhood of God, and see that anchored in the nature of our creation, in the image and after the likeness of God, then surely you must realise that in some sense we are all children of God, and as John 3:16 yells us, all are objects of his love, absolutely.

To say that God is Love and that God is impassable, are statements that are clearly aligned. God does not like us sinning, however, that is very different from saying that God doe not love us.

 

[friend of]

I think you don't quite understand the point. God loves every one of us, absolutely. God does not love Christians more than other sinners. Those who turn to Christ, who repent of their sins, who renounce evil, are called to shine as a light in the world to the Glory of God the Father, are certainly Children of God, however, if we believe in the fatherhood of God, and see that anchored in the nature of our creation, in the image and after the likeness of God, then surely you must realise that in some sense we are all children of God, and as John 3:16 yells us, all are objects of his love, absolutely.

To say that God is Love and that God is impassable, are statements that are clearly aligned. God does not like us sinning, however, that is very different from saying that God doe not love us.

I never said God doesn't love everyone. Scripture says He does. But He favors His children over those outside of Christ.

If God does not love us sinning then that would mean He is affected by our actions and hence could not be impassible.

 

[Fervent]

Voted yes, because while "impassibility" is named so regarding suffering it is in reality a declaration that there is no variance within God. The question is not properly whether God has emotions, but whether there is unrealized potential in God(the potential to experience suffering). So while God very much has emotions, these emotions are fully realized at all times. So I don't think impassibility is appropriately named, what it indicates about God is true.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Voted yes, because while "impassibility" is named so regarding suffering it is in reality a declaration that there is no variance within God. The question is not properly whether God has emotions, but whether there is unrealized potential in God(the potential to experience suffering). So while God very much has emotions, these emotions are fully realized at all times. So I don't think impassibility is appropriately named, what it indicates about God is true.

Exactly right. Impassibility is part of Aseity and Simplicity. He is not like man that he should change. Yet in every way in which man is made in God's image, God is the real, and man the vaporous image.

Malachi 3:6, "I the LORD do not change."
Numbers 23:19, "God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind."

 

[JAL]

Exactly right. Impassibility is part of Aseity and Simplicity. He is not like man that he should change. Yet in every way in which man is made in God's image, God is the real, and man the vaporous image.

Malachi 3:6, "I the LORD do not change."
Numbers 23:19, "God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind."

Aseity and Simplicity? Recently you assured me that you formed your view of God entirely on your own without any indoctrination from philosophical models of the past. I didn't believe you then, and I most certainly don't believe you now. You're in denial.

Regarding those two verses. Certainly they lend some support to such philosophical models, but they are not decisive. Be aware that I understand Yahweh to be irreversibly holy ( as opposed to immutably holy). Meaning, Yahweh, having gradually acquired His holiness over time, felt the need to make it irreversible. Those two verses are as consistent with my position as they are with yours.

Again, this is why William Lane Craig admitted that the traditional philosophical definitions of God cannot be proven from Scripture - they are just one possible interpretation.

 

[JAL]

Voted yes, because while "impassibility" is named so regarding suffering it is in reality a declaration that there is no variance within God. The question is not properly whether God has emotions, but whether there is unrealized potential in God(the potential to experience suffering). So while God very much has emotions, these emotions are fully realized at all times. So I don't think impassibility is appropriately named, what it indicates about God is true.

So God FULLY suffers the cross at all times? Really?

In that case I'm surprised that Jesus said, "It is finished."

 

[Fervent]

So God FULLY suffers the cross at all times? Really?

In that case I'm surprised that Jesus said, "It is finished."

Is Jesus not the same yesterday, today, and forever? The lamb slain from the foundation of the world? The change that occurs in God's apparant emotions is in creation, not in God.

 

[JAL]

Is Jesus not the same yesterday, today, and forever?

He is holy yesterday, today, and forever. (Personally I don't take that "yesterday" to mean an infinite past. He gradually became holy before creating Adam and Eve. At least since THAT yesterday HE has been holy).

The lamb slain from the foundation of the world? The change that occurs in God's apparant emotions is in creation, not in God.

I don't think that verse means what you think it does. Anyway if God fully suffers the cross at all times, I would hate to be in His shoes.

Just my opinion.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Aseity and Simplicity? Recently you assured me that you formed your view of God entirely on your own without any indoctrination from philosophical models of the past. I didn't believe you then, and I most certainly don't believe you now. You're in denial.

Regarding those two verses. Certainly they lend some support to such philosophical models, but they are not decisive. Be aware that I understand Yahweh to be irreversibly holy ( as opposed to immutably holy). Meaning, Yahweh, having gradually acquired His holiness over time, felt the need to make it irreversible. Those two verses are as consistent with my position as they are with yours.

Again, this is why William Lane Craig admitted that the traditional philosophical definitions of God cannot be proven from Scripture - they are just one possible interpretation.

Are you serious? Do you think I studied philosophy before arriving at the beliefs I have, which, by the way, have hardly changed since I found them. I am very much pleased when so many old dead guys agree with me, though. I had not studied philosophy til after I found out that most of what I believed was in essence, Reformed. I had never even heard of Aseity til maybe 5 years ago. But I found what I now hold to, beginning over 25 years ago. The old dead guys, and the more recent Reformed writers and speakers, have only given me better ways to say what I already believed, and helped solidify some of it, scripturally and logically.

By the way. Did I say, "entirely on my own?" Nobody does anything entirely on their own. Causation —remember? What I think I have been making plain is that I didn't come up with what I now believe by studying Calvinism or Reformed Theology. And now that you bring up philosophy, I can also say that I didn't come up with what I now believe by studying philosophy. I can say this: The consideration of Aseity reduces me to grateful, joyful tears. And scripture is replete with it.

Again, I don't care what William Lane Craig thinks. I hear he holds to middle knowledge. As such, I REALLY don't care what he thinks. EVERY philosophical truth concerning the necessary nature of God that I have read (Yes, there are some illogical philosophical claims —they are not true. There are also some that to me sound like speculation, some of which may be true —I don't know. Those haven't been proven to my satisfaction.), is supported or outright declared in Scripture. There are several scriptural claims that are not yet proven philosophically; maybe that is what WLC was referring to, particularly those that translate to Christ himself being God.

 

[JAL]

Are you serious? Do you think I studied philosophy before arriving at the beliefs I have, which, by the way, have hardly changed since I found them. I am very much pleased when so many old dead guys agree with me, though. I had not studied philosophy til after I found out that most of what I believed was in essence, Reformed. I had never even heard of Aseity til maybe 5 years ago. But I found what I now hold to, beginning over 25 years ago. The old dead guys, and the more recent Reformed writers and speakers, have only given me better ways to say what I already believed, and helped solidify some of it, scripturally and logically.

By the way. Did I say, "entirely on my own?" Nobody does anything entirely on their own. Causation —remember? What I think I have been making plain is that I didn't come up with what I now believe by studying Calvinism or Reformed Theology. And now that you bring up philosophy, I can also say that I didn't come up with what I now believe by studying philosophy. I can say this: The consideration of Aseity reduces me to grateful, joyful tears. And scripture is replete with it.

Again, I don't care what William Lane Craig thinks. I hear he holds to middle knowledge. As such, I REALLY don't care what he thinks. EVERY philosophical truth concerning the necessary nature of God that I have read (Yes, there are some illogical philosophical claims —they are not true. There are also some that to me sound like speculation, some of which may be true —I don't know. Those haven't been proven to my satisfaction.), is supported or outright declared in Scripture. There are several scriptural claims that are not yet proven philosophically; maybe that is what WLC was referring to, particularly those that translate to Christ himself being God.

Simplicity? Really? You came up with DDS (Doctrine of Divine Simplicity) on your own?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Simplicity? Really? You came up with DDS (Doctrine of Divine Simplicity) on your own?

Read it again. I did not study philosophy til I had already found the things I believe. The things I read/heard subsequently help me solidify terminology and thinking, not the precept itself. I'm not sure there is ANYTHING I believe in currently that is newer to me than 20 years old, maybe 25, unless a few minor details. "Divine Simplicity" is sweet to me, and it helps me understand some of the things I have long believed, it helps organize my thoughts.

 

[JAL]

Read it again. I did not study philosophy til I had already found the things I believe. The things I read/heard subsequently help me solidify terminology and thinking, not the precept itself. I'm not sure there is ANYTHING I believe in currently that is newer to me than 20 years old, maybe 25, unless a few minor details. "Divine Simplicity" is sweet to me, and it helps me understand some of the things I have long believed, it helps organize my thoughts.

Divine Simplicity is so bizarre - and so bogus in my opinion - that I can't imagine two different people (such as you and Plato) reaching that same weird conclusion on their own. I mean, properties/concepts exist? Seriously? And God is such a property/concept? As a person, I like pepperoni on my pizza. And you, as a person, perhaps prefer sausage. What kind of pizza does a CONCEPT prefer? This is total nonsense.

I'm not sure how Yahweh feels about pizza, but I'm pretty confident He likes bread and beef steak, because that's what He ate when He came over to Abraham's house for supper, one evening (Gen 18).

 

[Mark Quayle]

Divine Simplicity is so bizarre - and so bogus in my opinion - that I can't imagine two different people (such as you and Plato) reaching that same weird conclusion on their own. I mean, properties/concepts exist? Seriously? And God is such a property/concept? As a person, I like pepperoni on my pizza. And you, as a person, perhaps prefer sausage. What kind of pizza does a CONCEPT prefer? This is total nonsense.

I'm not sure how Yahweh feels about pizza, but I'm pretty confident He likes bread and beef steak, because that's what He ate when He came over to Abraham's house for supper, one evening (Gen 18).

What in the world are you talking about?

 

[JAL]

What in the world are you talking about?

Apparently you don't understand the basics of Simplicity. Nevermind, then.

 

[Fervent]

Apparently you don't understand the basics of Simplicity. Nevermind, then.

From your bizarre rant it seems you don't understand simplicity, and to some extent have mixed it up with Platonic realism which has nothing to do with it.