Impassability of God?

food4thought

Loving truth
Supporter
Jul 9, 2002
2,929
725
50
Watervliet, MI
✟383,729.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Impassibility of God
Classic theism teaches that God is impassible — not subject to suffering, pain, or the ebb and flow of involuntary passions. (theopedia.com)

I have a problem with the doctrine of the impassability of God. If God is truly not subject to suffering or pain, then in what sense did the Son of God suffer at the cross? Why does the Scripture refer to the "sufferings" of Christ (2 Corinthians 1:5; Philippians 3:10; Hebrews 2:10; 1 Peter 1:11; 1 Peter 5:1; etc.)? Is Christ not God of God, Light of Light, begotten, not made? This brings me to my problem: the council of Chalcedon expels from the priesthood anyone who denies the impassability of God... I am at odds with a declaration of the 4th ecumenical council... am I still orthodox in my beliefs, or am I a heretic? Should I even care what they thought?

Help!
 

Southernscotty

Well-Known Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Mar 5, 2018
6,616
9,612
52
Arkansas
✟504,848.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Celibate
Jesus was alone for awhile, He was fully man at that point, He cried out my God my God, why have you forsaken me?, That was in His aramaic childhood language. Remember it became dark as He took on the sins of the world and it was separation from the Father.
 
Upvote 0

food4thought

Loving truth
Supporter
Jul 9, 2002
2,929
725
50
Watervliet, MI
✟383,729.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Jesus was alone for awhile, He was fully man at that point, He cried out my God my God, why have you forsaken me?, That was in His aramaic childhood language. Remember it became dark as He took on the sins of the world and it was separation from the Father.
I know, right? How can I hold to impassability, a philosophical construct, when Scripture clearly teaches that Jesus suffered? What were the Bishops at Chalcedon thinking?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: zelosravioli
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Here's an interesting explanation of impassibility from J I Packer that almost makes it look reasonable: Divine Impassibility | Monergism. This paper makes a similar point with respect to the first Christian writers that used the concept. https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=channels I'm not entirely convinced, but you should at least look.

It's hard to know how to define heresy today. I wouldn't consider denial of impassibility to be heretical, but i tend to have loose criteria.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

food4thought

Loving truth
Supporter
Jul 9, 2002
2,929
725
50
Watervliet, MI
✟383,729.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Here's an interesting explanation of impassibility from J I Packer that almost makes it look reasonable: Divine Impassibility | Monergism. This paper makes a similar point with respect to the first Christian writers that used the concept. I'm not entirely convinced, but you should at least look.

It's hard to know how to define heresy today. I wouldn't consider denial of impassibility to be heretical, but i tend to have loose criteria.

Thank you Hedrick. I'll have to digest that for a bit.
 
Upvote 0

Doug Melven

Well-Known Member
Nov 2, 2017
3,080
2,576
59
Wyoming
✟75,708.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
To say that God doesn't experience pain or pleasure is to deny many Scriptures.
Ephesians 4:30 And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God.
Luke 15:7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

But God doesn't make decisions based on how He feels.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: food4thought
Upvote 0

St_Worm2

Simul Justus et Peccator
Supporter
Jan 28, 2002
27,246
45,333
67
✟2,915,768.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Impassibility of God
Classic theism teaches that God is impassible — not subject to suffering, pain, or the ebb and flow of involuntary passions. (theopedia.com)

I have a problem with the doctrine of the impassability of God. If God is truly not subject to suffering or pain, then in what sense did the Son of God suffer at the cross? Why does the Scripture refer to the "sufferings" of Christ (2 Corinthians 1:5; Philippians 3:10; Hebrews 2:10; 1 Peter 1:11; 1 Peter 5:1; etc.)? Is Christ not God of God, Light of Light, begotten, not made? This brings me to my problem: the council of Chalcedon expels from the priesthood anyone who denies the impassability of God... I am at odds with a declaration of the 4th ecumenical council... am I still orthodox in my beliefs, or am I a heretic? Should I even care what they thought?

Help!
Hi F4T, God cannot cease to be God/cannot die (so there is that paradox to consider as well). I think the answer to the paradoxes concerning His emotions, suffering & pain while He lived among us is found in the fact that Jesus was both 100% God and 100% man. IOW, His "Divine" nature cannot suffer, cannot feel pain, and as God, He certainly cannot die, but none of that is true concerning His human nature (well, at least prior to His Resurrection anyway).

As for His impassibility, I agree with Dr. Packer about what it means, that:

"God’s experiences do not come upon Him as ours come upon us. His are foreknown, willed, and chosen by Himself, and are not involuntary surprises forced on Him from outside, apart form His own decision, in the way that ours regularly are."​

Thanks for positing the link for us @hedrick :oldthumbsup:

--David
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: food4thought
Upvote 0

food4thought

Loving truth
Supporter
Jul 9, 2002
2,929
725
50
Watervliet, MI
✟383,729.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Hi F4T, God cannot cease to be God/cannot die (so there is that paradox to consider as well).

Hi St_Worm2, thanks for you thoughtful response. My understanding of physical death is that it is only the separation of the soul from the body, so when Jesus' human nature died, necessarily so did the Divine nature suffer physical death (separation from the body). The eternal Word took upon Himself our corruptible human nature in order to suffer death (1 Peter 3:18) and take the penalty for humanity's sins upon Himself.

I think the answer to the paradoxes concerning His emotions, suffering & pain while He lived among us is found in the fact that Jesus was both 100% God and 100% man. IOW, His "Divine" nature cannot suffer, cannot feel pain, and as God, He certainly cannot die, but none of that is true concerning His human nature (well, at least prior to His Resurrection anyway).

More speculatively, I believe that the eternal Word experienced wrath from the Father during the time of darkness while He was on the cross. We have no way of calculating what that marring of the eternal fellowship of agape cost God, and I freely admit it is a mystery to me how the eternal communion of the Trinity could be effected by something in the temporal realm, but it makes sense to me that the cost to God would be infinite and eternal because the penalty for unbelief is the same.

As for His impassibility, I agree with Dr. Packer about what it means, that:

"God’s experiences do not come upon Him as ours come upon us. His are foreknown, willed, and chosen by Himself, and are not involuntary surprises forced on Him from outside, apart form His own decision, in the way that ours regularly are."​

Thanks for positing the link for us @hedrick :oldthumbsup:

--David
I can agree with that, but it doesn't answer to suffering, which I believe the Father is capable of. Thanks for the thoughts, though... you've helped me flesh out why I believe God is passable, and maybe helped open the way for me to understand Him as impassable in the sense that Dr. Packer lays out.
 
Upvote 0

Job3315

Well-Known Member
Apr 21, 2018
885
729
United States
✟89,540.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Impassibility of God
Classic theism teaches that God is impassible — not subject to suffering, pain, or the ebb and flow of involuntary passions. (theopedia.com)

I have a problem with the doctrine of the impassability of God. If God is truly not subject to suffering or pain, then in what sense did the Son of God suffer at the cross? Why does the Scripture refer to the "sufferings" of Christ (2 Corinthians 1:5; Philippians 3:10; Hebrews 2:10; 1 Peter 1:11; 1 Peter 5:1; etc.)? Is Christ not God of God, Light of Light, begotten, not made? This brings me to my problem: the council of Chalcedon expels from the priesthood anyone who denies the impassability of God... I am at odds with a declaration of the 4th ecumenical council... am I still orthodox in my beliefs, or am I a heretic? Should I even care what they thought?

Help!
Impassibility of God
Classic theism teaches that God is impassible — not subject to suffering, pain, or the ebb and flow of involuntary passions. (theopedia.com)

I have a problem with the doctrine of the impassability of God. If God is truly not subject to suffering or pain, then in what sense did the Son of God suffer at the cross? Why does the Scripture refer to the "sufferings" of Christ (2 Corinthians 1:5; Philippians 3:10; Hebrews 2:10; 1 Peter 1:11; 1 Peter 5:1; etc.)? Is Christ not God of God, Light of Light, begotten, not made? This brings me to my problem: the council of Chalcedon expels from the priesthood anyone who denies the impassability of God... I am at odds with a declaration of the 4th ecumenical council... am I still orthodox in my beliefs, or am I a heretic? Should I even care what they thought?

Help!

I often think about God’s emotions because the Bible says God has a soul. Not only it is backed up by scriptures, but when you get to know Him you get to see His heart, and we were created in His image, so we are actually able to see God through humans more than we think.

I often wonder how He must've felt when His creation got separated from Him. I think it was probably a feeling of grief, like when someone close to you dies and you feel a separation.

I also think how Jesus cried when Lazarus was dead, I mean He knew Lazarus was going to be resurrected, but I wonder if the reason Jesus cried was because He felt what the others who were mourning were feeling, and Jesus felt compassion.
 
Upvote 0

St_Worm2

Simul Justus et Peccator
Supporter
Jan 28, 2002
27,246
45,333
67
✟2,915,768.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Hi again @food4thought, here's a little bit of what Dr. Geisler has to say about the impassibility of God:

Impassability (without Passions). A long-recognized attribute of God that has recently come under attack is impassability. God is without passions. Passion implies desire for what one does not have. But God, as an absolutely perfect Being, lacks nothing. To lack something he would have to have a potentiality to have it. But God is Pure Actuality with no potentiality whatsoever. Therefore, God is completely and infinitely satisfied in his own perfection.

However, to say that God is impassable in the sense that he has no passions or cravings for fulfillment is not to say that he has no feelings. God feels anger at sin and rejoices in righteousness. But God’s feelings are unchanging. He always, unchangingly, feels the same sense of anger at sin. He never ceases to rejoice in goodness and rightness. Thus, God has no changing passions, but he does have unchanging feelings.
~Geisler, N. L. (1999). God, Nature Of. In Baker encyclopedia of Christian apologetics (p. 284). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
It also seems to me that God's impassible nature is tied to His immutable nature, because if He experienced emotions in the same way that we do, IOW, if He could be surprised and then reacted to the things around Him like we do, then He would be both controlled and changed by these things, to one degree or another (like we are by our emotions), and He could no longer be said to be immutable. And if He is not immutable, we wouldn't be able to trust a lot of what He says. For instance, His Divine promises to us would be reduced to what we could only "hope" would happen, and His ability to declare the end from the beginning, would be reduced to mere conjecture.

--David
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Doug Melven
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

food4thought

Loving truth
Supporter
Jul 9, 2002
2,929
725
50
Watervliet, MI
✟383,729.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Hi again @food4thought, here's a little bit of what Dr. Geisler has to say about the impassibility of God:

Impassability (without Passions). A long-recognized attribute of God that has recently come under attack is impassability. God is without passions. Passion implies desire for what one does not have. But God, as an absolutely perfect Being, lacks nothing. To lack something he would have to have a potentiality to have it. But God is Pure Actuality with no potentiality whatsoever. Therefore, God is completely and infinitely satisfied in his own perfection.

However, to say that God is impassable in the sense that he has no passions or cravings for fulfillment is not to say that he has no feelings. God feels anger at sin and rejoices in righteousness. But God’s feelings are unchanging. He always, unchangingly, feels the same sense of anger at sin. He never ceases to rejoice in goodness and rightness. Thus, God has no changing passions, but he does have unchanging feelings.
~Geisler, N. L. (1999). God, Nature Of. In Baker encyclopedia of Christian apologetics (p. 284). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
It also seems to me that God's impassible nature is tied to His immutable nature, because if He experienced emotions in the same way that we do, IOW, if He could be surprised and then react to the things around Him like we do, then He would be both controlled and changed by these things, to one degree or another (like we are by our emotions), and He could no longer be said to be immutable. And if He is not immutable, we wouldn't be able to trust a lot of what He says. For instance, His Divine promises to us would be reduced to what we can only "hope"will happen, and His ability to declare the end from the beginning, would be reduced to mere conjecture.

--David

Thanks for replying again, St_Worm2. If we can limit the definition of impassability to unbridled emotion and passion in response to stimuli, then I can agree wholeheartedly that God is indeed impassable. My problem is whether God is able to suffer, to hurt, to experience pain in some way... these things I think are intrinsic to the capacity of God to have compassion on us, and is also central to what the eternal Word experienced at the cross. I guess I can express qualified agreement with Chalcedon as long as it can be shown they did not have suffering, but passion in mind.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Believe it or not, the Trinity is connected to this. In the early church some people assumed that Jesus was the incarnation of the Father, or perhaps an undifferentiated God. This was rejected because it would mean that the Father suffered. The Trinity provides a level of isolation for the Father from Jesus' suffering.
 
Upvote 0

Mark_Sam

Veteran Newbie
Mar 12, 2011
612
333
29
✟54,249.00
Country
Norway
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
If God is truly not subject to suffering or pain, then in what sense did the Son of God suffer at the cross? Why does the Scripture refer to the "sufferings" of Christ
Christ suffered as man, in his human nature. However, the union between the Divine and human nature in Christ (the Hypostatic Union) is so close, that which belongs to one nature, belongs to the whole Person of Christ.
 
  • Like
Reactions: food4thought
Upvote 0

food4thought

Loving truth
Supporter
Jul 9, 2002
2,929
725
50
Watervliet, MI
✟383,729.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Believe it or not, the Trinity is connected to this. In the early church some people assumed that Jesus was the incarnation of the Father, or perhaps an undifferentiated God. This was rejected because it would mean that the Father suffered. The Trinity provides a level of isolation for the Father from Jesus' suffering.

Never saw it that way.
 
Upvote 0

food4thought

Loving truth
Supporter
Jul 9, 2002
2,929
725
50
Watervliet, MI
✟383,729.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Christ suffered as man, in his human nature. However, the union between the Divine and human nature in Christ (the Hypostatic Union) is so close, that which belongs to one nature, belongs to the whole Person of Christ.

So did the eternal Word suffer or not?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Doug Melven

Well-Known Member
Nov 2, 2017
3,080
2,576
59
Wyoming
✟75,708.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
So did the eternal Word suffer or not?
Yes, He did.
Hebrews 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

To say that God can't suffer would deny to many Scriptures.
In Genesis 3 after Adam sinned, God called, "Where are you".
When I read those words I can't help but think there must have been pain in that call.
Even though God knew Adam was going to sin, and what the consequences would be, it still had to hurt.
In Genesis 6 it says that it repented the LORD that He had made man. And the only solution to make sure there was a pure bloodline for Jesus to be born into God had to destroy everybody but Noah and his family.
In 1 Samuel we see the people wanting a king, And Samuel is telling the people they don't need a king, they have God as there Ruler. But God tells Samuel to give the people what they want, because the people had rejected God.

The thing is, God doesn't react to any pleasure or pain feeling. He is God and has planned and made provision for our failures.
God knew Adam was going to sin.
God slew the Lamb before the foundation of the world.
God knew He was going to destroy the earth with a flood and He already knew how Noah was going to build the ark.
God knew the people would reject Him and already had His eye on David, who was to be a type of Christ.
 
  • Like
Reactions: food4thought
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
So did the eternal Word suffer or not?
Yes, but with qualification. Cyril's answer was “To say that he suffered does no disgrace to him, for he did not suffer in the nature of the godhead, but in his own flesh” I think this would be a typical answer.

If you don't say that the Logos in some sense suffered, you're attacking the personal union. In classical theology there is only one subject in Christ.
 
  • Like
Reactions: food4thought
Upvote 0

Mark_Sam

Veteran Newbie
Mar 12, 2011
612
333
29
✟54,249.00
Country
Norway
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
So did the eternal Word suffer or not?
The eternal Word (a divine Person) did indeed suffer. Because he had a human nature which suffered. What belongs to one nature, belongs to the whole Person: therefore we can say "God suffered". But what belongs to one nature, does not belong to the other, so we cannot say "God in his divine nature suffered". The technical term is "the communication of properties" (communicatio idiomatum).
 
  • Informative
Reactions: food4thought
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Bob Crowley

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 27, 2015
2,998
1,858
69
Logan City
✟747,013.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Impassibility of God
Classic theism teaches that God is impassible — not subject to suffering, pain, or the ebb and flow of involuntary passions. (theopedia.com)

I have a problem with the doctrine of the impassability of God. If God is truly not subject to suffering or pain, then in what sense did the Son of God suffer at the cross? Why does the Scripture refer to the "sufferings" of Christ (2 Corinthians 1:5; Philippians 3:10; Hebrews 2:10; 1 Peter 1:11; 1 Peter 5:1; etc.)? Is Christ not God of God, Light of Light, begotten, not made? This brings me to my problem: the council of Chalcedon expels from the priesthood anyone who denies the impassability of God... I am at odds with a declaration of the 4th ecumenical council... am I still orthodox in my beliefs, or am I a heretic? Should I even care what they thought?

Help!

I have a problem with it myself, but in a different sense. If we go back to the "beginning" when God is alone, before He created anything, and there was only Father, Son and Holy Ghost, then where did He (They?) get the concepts of created pain, sex, day, night, male, female, etc. which are so much a part of this world, and then proceed to build a universe in which these are part of it's warp and weave, when God Himself had no personal experience of these things, in His own being?

I mean to make it a bit lurid - take the human sex act. Why the heck would a sexless God, alone in paradise, come up with this method of reproduction??

There's a film around about a celebrated Australian cameraman in World War II named Damien Parer (killed in action 17 September, 1944, Peleliu Island while filming American troops). During the movie, which briefly included his marriage and honeymoon, at one point Parer and his new wife were fumbling around trying to do their marital duty for the first time. Parer quipped "Whoever decided on this just has to be a comedian!!" or something similar.

So the point is, does God feel pain, joy, etc. If He doesn't, then how did He devise something like pain receptors or for that matter, the somewhat peculiar sex act, which is partly meant to bond men and women together as part of a marriage relationship, in view of the fact these things are alien to His whole existence?
 
Upvote 0