Impassability of God?

[food4thought]

Rereading this to refresh my memory in regards to impassibilty, and once again I thank all of the respondents for their contributions to my understanding, and also for the gentle spirit in which they were communicated.

 

[hedrick]

Thanks again for a thoughtful and informative reply, Hedrick.

I understand that this is definitely a thorny theological problem, but why did Chalcedon have to take such a positive stance on an issue that we all can admit we don't fully understand? What is wrong with just saying we don't know for sure how exactly this works itself out, and we can accept multiple viewpoints on this subject? It just seems like arrogance on their part to make such a strong statement about something so uncertain...

Sorry, just needed to vent there... I really appreciate you all for taking the time to answer me!

Because that’s not how the early church worked. I agree that it would have been better. When i read the proceedings of many of the councils I find the approach non-Christian. Even if they are right (and I think Nicea can be regarded as summarizing Scripture), the insistence that anyone who doesn't agree with their approach is an enemy of God would rule them out as having any authority.

 

[food4thought]

Because that’s not how the early church worked. I agree that it would have been better. When i read the proceedings of many of the councils I find the approach non-Christian. Even if they are right (and I think Nicea can be regarded as summarizing Scripture), the insistence that anyone who doesn't agree with their approach is an enemy of God would rule them out as having any authority.

Although I agree with the spirit of your last statement, it must be admitted that the NT Scriptures takes a strong stance against false teachers, condemning them in no uncertain words. In light of that fact, perhaps we can forgive nicea for taking a hardline stance in order to establish the boundaries, but the councils from chalcedon on (and perhaps earlier, I need to research them further) really seem to be splitting philosophical hairs, and should not have been so dogmatic and condemning towards opposing views.

Thanks again, Hedrick!