RE. Impossibilty of GOD

[alex2165]

Responding to JM’s thread Impassibility of God

Discussion in 'Baptists' started by JM, Oct 18, 2016

I think that GOD not only spiritually emotional with which I believe nobody would argue about, but He also feels and physical senses.

For example, when Hebrews offered to GOD their sacrifices according to GOD’S Commandments, among those sacrifices was a sacrifice called as “of a soothing aroma to the Lord.” Basically it’s a sacrifice of thanks-giving to the Lord.

If a Lord have a pleasure in physical aroma of this physical sacrifice, surely He have and His physical senses to enjoy it and appreciate it.

But there is much more than that, Jesus Himself repeatedly said that He and His Father are One. and He also said :

John 14.9

9.Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father, how do you say, 'Show us the Father'?”

John 12.45

45.”And whoever sees Me, sees Him Who sent Me.”

These two verses above may do not reflect exactly the physical essence of GOD Father, but I believe that whatever Jesus experiences physically, His Heavenly Father also experienced physically, particularly when Jesus suffered on the cross.

There is a certain invisible link between Father and Son. Certainly They have strong Spiritual link, but I also think that They also have and a physical link in order to experience for Themselves the physiology They created.

No one of any angels as far as I know experienced any physical sense, and in order for GOD Father and particularly for His Son to be the First among the First, They experienced the physical senses and physiology of human beings Themselves, so They would have complete experience of physical existence and its senses, and in this experience be above all angels in Their Own unique experience which the angels do not know.

1Corinthians 15.

18.He is also Head of the body - the church, and He is the Beginning, the First-Born from the dead, so that He Himself might come to have first place in everything.

Hebrews 1.4

4.having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they.

And for this reason no one would say that GOD does not have physical experience and he does not know the suffering of physical flesh.

Taking to account all these passages I believe that GOD Father physically experienced everything that His Son experienced on Earth in physical flesh, and the agony and the pain on the cross as well, may not in full range of it as His Son, but certainly some of it.

So my conclusion is this, that GOD is “PASSIBLE” in order to be completely perfect, just, merciful, loving, and compassioned, and to be the First among the first.

Because only those who experienced the ordeal of others can fully understand them, and so is GOD did the same thing, in order to completely understand His creation He experienced through His Son everything what human beings experienced on Earth and become in this respect the First among first and completely Perfect among perfect, and better than all the angels He had created having completely full experience of all existence, spiritual and physical.

 

[Radrook]

So this thread isn't so much about the impossibility of the existence of God as much as it is about proving the Trinitarian nature of God?

 

[JM]

Radrook, it was just a typo in the title of the thread. It's impassibility not impossibility.

alex, thank you for your irenic reply. I do appreciate it. The reasons given for impassibility are pretty simple. God's holy word tells us, "For I am the LORD, I change not..." which Christians have taken to mean that God's will, emotion, purpose, etc. does not change. That our eternal God is not affected by what takes place in time because He knows all and sees all - God decrees all...after all. lol

With the classic Baptist view held by Arminians and Reformed Baptists alike, God is said to be impassible. He does not change. This is another reason why we can say we are eternally secure in Christ! When we read about God's arm or repenting, we should view these statements in scripture as anthropomorphisms. A way for the biblical writer to relate God to man by ascribing human characteristics.

Yours in the Lord.

 

[Radrook]

The Bible doesn't describe God as emotionless for a reason.
Please keep in mind that we are made in his image and we are capable of feeling emotions,.
If God were emotionless then being in his image would be similar to being like the Character Spock of the Star Trek Series,.

 

[JM]

The Bible doesn't describe God as emotionless for a reason.
Please keep in mind that we are made in his image and we are capable of feeling emotions,.
If God were emotionless then being in his image would be similar to being like the Character Spock of the Star Trek Series,.

It's not emotionless I describe so your comment is the base for a straw man.

 

[Radrook]

It's not emotionless I describe so your comment is the base for a straw man.

Impassivity is emotionlessness.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/impassivity

 

[JM]

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.

 

[JM]

Aseity (from Latin a "from" and se "self", plus -ity) refers to the property by which a being exists in and of itself, from itself, or exists as so-and-such of and from itself.

 

[Radrook]

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.

Just because a concept or viewpoint becomes a doctrine doesn't mean that it is legitimately supported by scripture. This one seems to go completely contrary to a host of scriptures which indicate the exact opposite of what it claims.

 

[JM]

Just because a concept or viewpoint becomes a doctrine doesn't mean that it is legitimately supported by scripture.

I agree Radrook and would say we, as Baptists, have done a good job of preventing this from happening until recently. This doctrine we are discussing was once accepted by all Baptists, Arminian and Reformed, with no argument. It was agreed upon by all. However, since Finney and the downgrade of the Gospel, doctrines have slipped in and taken many of us unaware. The doctrine most Baptists hold to today, the one that denies God's aseity, is not legitimately supported by scripture...not by history or reason either.

Yours in the Lord.

 

[com7fy8]

I can see that God is able to sense and feel physical things, but He is not controlled by how creature things feel.

But humans can be under the power of what they feel. They can seek pleasure in order to feel something nicer feeling than their sin's emotional and spiritual mess.

But God is already as well-to-do as He can be . . . so better than how any physical pleasure could make anyone feel. And His grace shares this with us, so that pain and pleasure can not have power over us and we can have His perfect satisfaction of His love > 2 Corinthians 12:7-15.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Before I comment, is this thread also posted in an area where technically the OP does not allow disagreement and can uphold that?

Or maybe I shouldn't beat around the bush... will we be reported if we disagree here?

Honestly, not sure how this works yet.

 

[Radrook]

Affectations of God

I agree Radrook and would say we, as Baptists, have done a good job of preventing this from happening until recently. This doctrine we are discussing was once accepted by all Baptists, Arminian and Reformed, with no argument. It was agreed upon by all. However, since Finney and the downgrade of the Gospel, doctrines have slipped in and taken many of us unaware. The doctrine most Baptists hold to today, the one that denies God's aseity, is not legitimately supported by scripture...not by history or reason either.

Yours in the Lord.

So when the Bible tells us that God is compassionate, feels love, is angered, disappointed, glad, saddened, happy, in peace, jealous, it is lying to us because according to that doctrine God is impassive? Sorry but I will accept what I am clearly being told

Emotions Shown by God
http://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Emotions,-Shown-By-God

Affectations of God
http://www.gospeltruth.net/1839OE/391009_emotions_of_god.htm

 

[twin1954]

Affectations of God

So when the Bible tells us that God is compassionate, feels love, is angered, disappointed, glad, saddened, happy, in peace, jealous, it is lying to us because according to that doctrine God is impassive? Sorry but I will accept what I am clearly being told

Emotions Shown by God
http://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Emotions,-Shown-By-God

Affectations of God
http://www.gospeltruth.net/1839OE/391009_emotions_of_god.htm

So you are willing to worship a god who is just like a man who is controlled by emotions?

 

[Kenny'sID]

So you are willing to worship a god who is just like a man who is controlled by emotions?

Where do you get that he is controlled by emotions? Only because y'all keep saying it? What's your basis for the fact?

Are you always controlled by your emotions? or are you able to at least somewhat keep them under control, and if so, you don't think God can do much better?

Just seems like a ridiculous line of thought to me, but maybe you can make me understand?

 

[Kenny'sID]

As to your question, I'd much rather have a God with emotion, and am happy to worship him because of that and not in spite of it.

 

[Radrook]

So you are willing to worship a god who is just like a man who is controlled by emotions?

He isn't controlled by emotions. All his emotions are filtered or balanced by his infinite faculties of Justice, Love and Wisdom.

 

[JM]

Aseity (from Latin a "from" and se "self", plus -ity) refers to the property by which a being exists in and of itself, from itself, or exists as so-and-such of and from itself.

The modern idea denies any scriptural meaning behind God's aseity. It's a very humanistic idea.

PS: I will report anyone that is NOT a Baptist for arguing against historic Baptist beliefs.

 

[TaylorSexton]

I was just having a discussion regarding the impassibility of God yesterday with some friends here at school. I think the problem (for me) has to do with how it is defined. Since we are describing the very nature of God, words and definitions have to be crafted very carefully if they are to remain faithful to Scripture.

In short, I think the way I go about this is by understanding exactly what is happening when Scripture says that God is "X" (insert emotion for "X"). I understand this to mean that this emotion is being manifested at that specific time toward a specific object.

Let me explain with an example. Say Scripture says that God's anger was kindled against someone for their sin (which it says often). Does this mean that God left a state of calmness and entered a state of anger? I don't think so. As has been said above, the doctrine of impassibility (which I fully affirm to be truth) is derived from God's inability to change (i.e., his immutability). Therefore, God has always been angry about sin; he has always been joyful for righteousness; he is always been grieved about treachery; etc. However, God's anger is not always manifest against sinners (because, I would say, of common grace). So, when Scripture says that God feels an emotion, it seems clear to me that it is saying that that particular emotion is being manifested to us. We have to keep in mind that Scripture, because it is human language, is a massive condescension on God's part. Calvin calls it "baby talk." For example, God does not have arms, legs, wings,, doesn't wear a robe, and is neither male nor female, yet Scripture ascribes all of these to him because that it what the Holy Spirit saw fit to effectively communicate truths about God's nature to us.

For a Scripture reference, I think it is interesting that in Romans 1:18 God's wrath is said be "being revealed." It does not say that God is becoming wrathful. It says that his wrath is being revealed. Something has to exist prior for it to be revealed. Therefore, God's "emotions" (all of which are a product of his perfect attributes) have always existed, but are not always manifested. I understand emotions described to God in Scripture to be the latter.

I hope this helps the conversation.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

As written, let all the affections and the lusts of the flesh
be crucified. i.e. dead: null and void: inactive: without any more power.

Every thought, dream, hope, action
be brought subject to Y'SHUA (Jesus).
Totally.
Perfectly.
All the time.
Every day.
All day and all night.

Only accomplished when trusting YHWH to accomplish salvation in this life, and in the life to come.

Please keep in mind that we are made in his image and we are capable of feeling emotions,.

But humans can be under the power of what they feel. They can seek pleasure in order to feel something nicer feeling than their sin's emotional and spiritual mess.