# Divine Impassibility



## dildaysc (Jan 26, 2019)

The Westminster Confession of Faith describes God as "without body, parts, or passions, immutable".

The doctrine of Divine Impassibility is frequently neglected and/or denied, and little understood.

De Moor here defends the historic orthodox doctrine. Do you find his reasoning convincing?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 26, 2019)

Rather than being a neglected topic, Reformed Baptists have fixated on this subject very much over the past 5 years. This has been both for the good and the bad. I can elaborate if needed.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 26, 2019)

Just crossed my desk this morning as one of my Chatbox posts:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/churchplantmedia-cms/arbca_carlisle_pa/2015-4-20-arbca-tc-pp-impass2.pdf

I think De Moor is convincing.


----------



## Taylor (Jan 26, 2019)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I think De Moor is convincing.



I am sure that De Moor you read him, De Moor convincing he will be.

Reactions: Like 2 | Funny 8


----------



## dildaysc (Jan 26, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> Rather than being a neglected topic, Reformed Baptists have fixated on this subject very much over the past 5 years. This has been both for the good and the bad. I can elaborate if needed.


I would be interested to hear.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 27, 2019)

John Owen has some very good things to say with regards to impassibility in his work against the Socinians, which tells you something about the roots of this error. 

The eternally blessed God does not possess affections or unfulfilled desires. 

Anger and wrath are not in God.

Four arguments against God having affections.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 27, 2019)

dildaysc said:


> I would be interested to hear.



ARBCA is the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches in America. Several years ago they began to reprint the old works on impassibility and write new works. Some of the books were profitable and some were very dry. It was good to revive this old doctrine. However, some over-stated their case or accused those who did not follow their exact view of being Open Theists. A paper was then written and it was made a test of subscription to stay within the Association, which I believe was a bad move (putting additional papers as addenda to also be subscribed to in addition to the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, i.e, creating Confession-level papers). 

The paper was fairly well-written but held to some assumptions not sufficiently proven from Scripture. For example, Affirmation #3 states that, "*We affirm* that passages which speak of God’s being and essence must be given interpretive priority, not only because they are the less difficult and ambiguous, but also because what God is precedes what he is like toward us." But then they inadequately prove this point. As a friend explained, "The analogy of scripture simply says that the clear passages should take priority over the difficult and ambiguous passages. The position paper takes a step further and says which passages are clear, and which ones are difficult and ambiguous. The ones that describe God’s being and essence, which are called “ontological,” are the clear ones." I think this further step by ARBCA is unwarranted. 

While doing all of this there was also substantial interpersonal conflict behind the scenes and other grave sins ignored, to include child abuse. The association would have been better served by focusing on how to better keep children safe and in prioritizing missions. In the last 2 years they have shrunk by about 30-40% and continue to bleed member churches.

So the good that resulted was that: (1) there was a revival of a long-held doctrine largely forgotten in our day. 

The bad of it was that: (1) small nuances within this doctrine sometimes became the litmus test of who was "in" and who was "out" of the association, (2) other vital doctrines that were more pressing were ignored.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 27, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> The bad of it was that: (1) small nuances within this doctrine sometimes became the litmus test of who was "in" and who was "out" of the association, (2) other vital doctrines that were more pressing were ignored.



Same here. On a similar note there is a tendency among some Reformed Baptists (and paedo, as well) to define orthodoxy as what Thomas taught, end of discussion. So if I disagree with Thomas on exegesis, I am laughed at (happened on the Reformed Thomism forum on facebook) or called heterodox.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 27, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Same here. On a similar note there is a tendency among some Reformed Baptists (and paedo, as well) to define orthodoxy as what Thomas taught, end of discussion. So if I disagree with Thomas on exegesis, I am laughed at (happened on the Reformed Thomism forum on facebook) or called heterodox.


Yes, I didn't even bring up the spectre of Thomism haunting the RBs of today...but it is definitely there.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 27, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> Yes, I didn't even bring up the spectre of Thomism haunting the RBs of today...but it is definitely there.



And they get mad if you ever criticize anything Greek. I say leave the Greeks in the gay bath houses.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 27, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> And they get mad if you ever criticize anything Greek. I say leave the Greeks in the gay bath houses.


Diogenes was pretty cool as a philosopher though. Behold a man!


----------



## TheOldCourse (Jan 27, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> While doing all of this there was also substantial interpersonal conflict behind the scenes and other grave sins ignored, to include child abuse. The association would have been better served by focusing on how to better keep children safe and in prioritizing missions. In the last 2 years they have shrunk by about 30-40% and continue to bleed member churches.



I'm not sure what the one has to do with the other. Surely a church can exercise a rudimentary level of church discipline (which, I realize, looks different in a Baptist association) and fund missions while preparing a doctrinal report or debating a theological matter?

Regardless, thanks Rev. Dilday. Poole is excellent here.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 9, 2019)

TheOldCourse said:


> I'm not sure what the one has to do with the other. Surely a church can exercise a rudimentary level of church discipline (which, I realize, looks different in a Baptist association) and fund missions while preparing a doctrinal report or debating a theological matter?
> 
> Regardless, thanks Rev. Dilday. Poole is excellent here.


They can.

But they didn't.

Our priorities tell a lot about us.


----------



## Dachaser (Feb 9, 2019)

dildaysc said:


> The Westminster Confession of Faith describes God as "without body, parts, or passions, immutable".
> 
> The doctrine of Divine Impassibility is frequently neglected and/or denied, and little understood.
> 
> De Moor here defends the historic orthodox doctrine. Do you find his reasoning convincing?


God has emotions though, for He became angry with Israel over her sinning, and has love towards His own Covenant people?


----------



## earl40 (Feb 9, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> God has emotions though, for He became angry with Israel over her sinning, and has love towards His own Covenant people?



To think God can "become" anything other than what He is makes me angry.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Feb 9, 2019)

earl40 said:


> To think God can "become" anything other than what He is makes me angry.


He is love though. correct?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay (Feb 9, 2019)

Taylor Sexton said:


> I am sure that De Moor you read him, De Moor convincing he will be.


Oh, man ... that's even worse than _my_ material.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## TylerRay (Feb 9, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> God has emotions though, for He became angry with Israel over her sinning, and has love towards His own Covenant people?


David,
What did you think of what De Moor had to say?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 10, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> Oh, man ... that's even worse than _my_ material.



At least it is better than @Joshua's.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 10, 2019)

One problem on both sides in this discussion is that words like "unchangeable" and "emotion" don't have univocal meanings. Both sides use sloppy language. I don't believe God has flighty emotions like a pop singer, but nor do I believe God is a flat realm of essence, thought thinking thought.

Take In Numbers 23:19, God does not repent”

This is more covenantal than Aristotelian. entire context concerns Balaam’s attempt to curse Israel contrary to God’s covenantal love and election of them. There is nothing here about God’s being.

In Malachi 3:6, God says, “For I am the LORD, I do not change”

Again, this is clearly covenantal. God appeals to the “Sons of Jacob” who “from the days of our fathers have gone away from my ordinances.”

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## earl40 (Feb 10, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> One problem on both sides in this discussion is that words like "unchangeable" and "emotion" don't have univocal meanings. Both sides use sloppy language. I don't believe God has flighty emotions like a pop singer, but nor do I believe God is a flat realm of essence, thought thinking thought.



So what kind of emotions to you think God has? The definition of word emotion always entails the thought of change, and has been mentioned in the past we ought to think of God can be angry "as if" this is true.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 10, 2019)

earl40 said:


> So what kind of emotions to you think God has? The definition of word emotion always entails the thought of change, and has been mentioned in the past we ought to think of God can be angry "as if" this is true.



I didn't say God has emotions.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Feb 10, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> They can.
> 
> But they didn't.
> 
> Our priorities tell a lot about us.



That they can suggests you cannot blame prioritizing one for not prioritizing the other. It's not a zero-sum game. Blame the church (or association, in Baptist parlance?), not the doctrine.


----------



## earl40 (Feb 10, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I didn't say God has emotions.




The way you stated such seems to say there is some type of emotion in God...."I don't believe God has flighty emotions like a pop singer, but nor do I believe God is a flat realm of essence, thought thinking thought." So can you tell me if you can say if God has emotions or not, without equivocation?


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 10, 2019)

earl40 said:


> The way you stated such seems to say there is some type of emotion in God...."I don't believe God has flighty emotions like a pop singer, but nor do I believe God is a flat realm of essence, thought thinking thought." So can you tell me if you can say if God has emotions or not, without equivocation?



I don't believe God has emotions. I let the covenantal nature of Scripture govern how I view verses like "God's repenting," "anger," etc. I leave Aristotle in the gay bath houses.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 10, 2019)

TheOldCourse said:


> That they can suggests you cannot blame prioritizing one for not prioritizing the other. It's not a zero-sum game. Blame the church (or association, in Baptist parlance?), not the doctrine.


Nobody has unlimited time and resources. What the churches choose to preach and have conferences on and write about demonstrates their priorities and takes away from other issues. I don't blame the doctrine, but I definitely do blame the churches.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Feb 10, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> Nobody has unlimited time and resources. What the churches choose to preach and have conferences on and write about demonstrates their priorities and takes away from other issues. I don't blame the doctrine, but I definitely do blame the churches.



This probably isn't profitable for us to go much further, but you admitted that they could have done both. I agree that churches have limited resources and I don't have a dog in the fight as far as the ARBCA goes (I even had to double check to see if I got the acronym right!), and yet I am quite certain that working through the doctrine of divine impassibility is not what prevented them from addressing child abuse.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 10, 2019)

TheOldCourse said:


> This probably isn't profitable for us to go much further, but you admitted that they could have done both. I agree that churches have limited resources and I don't have a dog in the fight as far as the ARBCA goes (I even had to double check to see if I got the acronym right!), and yet I am quite certain that working through the doctrine of divine impassibility is not what prevented them from addressing child abuse.


Yes, we do not have to take this further...but I do think there is a valid connection. We sometimes define holiness as doctrinal strictness instead of doing right by other people. Doctrinal precision becomes an idol, even while we ignore other needs or become imbalanced in our priorities.


----------



## jw (Feb 10, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> At least it is better than @Joshua's.


Impassible!

Reactions: Funny 2 | Rejoicing 1


----------



## Dachaser (Feb 11, 2019)

earl40 said:


> So what kind of emotions to you think God has? The definition of word emotion always entails the thought of change, and has been mentioned in the past we ought to think of God can be angry "as if" this is true.


God has wrath towards sin, is that not a Holy Anger?


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 11, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> God has wrath towards sin, is that not a Holy Anger?


You could call these holy dispositions or affections.

Check out Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, Book I, Chapter 89 here: https://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles1.htm

Aquinas is often adopted by the most rigorous supporters of impassibility. Aquinas states, in chapter 89, that, "THAT IN GOD THERE ARE NOT THE PASSIONS OF THE APPETITES"

And he affirms this by stating, "passion is excluded in God" and again, "Therefore, there is no passion of the appetite in God." He states this several ways.

But then the very next chapter Aquinas asserts, "THAT IN GOD THERE ARE DELIGHT AND JOY, BUT THEY ARE NOT OPPOSED TO THE DIVINE PERFECTION." 

And again he asserts, "it is manifest that joy or delight is properly in God." And then in Chapter 91 Aquinas states, "... in God there is love."


----------



## Dachaser (Feb 11, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> You could call these holy dispositions or affections.
> 
> Check out Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, Book I, Chapter 89 here: https://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles1.htm
> 
> ...


So would be better to say that God has perfect emotions, as they never change, and are consistent with his own nature, to be angry at sin, loving and jealous towards His own, etc?


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 11, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> So would be better to say that God has perfect emotions, as they never change, and are consistent with his own nature, to be angry at sin, loving and jealous towards His own, etc?



I think the words "emotions" or "passions" would be frowned upon by many, but the terms "dispositions" or "affections" would be more tolerable. Passions or emotions convey a sense of changeability due to external circumstances otside the Being involved. We do see God responding to His creation in Scripture, but all of this response is also underneath the umbrella of His sovereignty.


----------



## Dachaser (Feb 11, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> I think the words "emotions" or "passions" would be frowned upon by many, but the terms "dispositions" or "affections" would be more tolerable. Passions or emotions convey a sense of changeability due to external circumstances otside the being involved. We do see God responding to His creation in Scripture, but all of this response is also underneath the umbrella of His sovereignty.


So His afflictions would be along the lines as I suggested here?


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 11, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> So His afflictions would be along the lines as I suggested here?



You stated that, "God has wrath towards sin, is that not a Holy Anger?" 

I would agree, but I am not very philosophically sophiscated and Aquinas in chapter 96 of the same Book I of the Summa Contra Gentile asserts that God truly hates nothing. So it sounds like Aquinas would disagree with you (unless we distinguish God's relations to His creatures versus God's Being in and of Himself). 

Aquinas states, 

"However, God is said by similitude to hate some things, and this in a twofold way. In the first way, because God, in loving things and by willing the existence of their good, wills the non-existence of the contrary evil. Hence, He is said to have a hatred of evils, for we are said to hate what we will not to exist. In the words of Zechariah (8:17): “And let none of you imagine evil in your hearts against his friend and love not a false oath. For all these are the things that I hate, says the Lord.” These, however, are not effects in the manner of subsisting things, to which properly love and hate refer.

[8] The second way arises from the fact that God wills some greater good that cannot be without the loss of some lesser good. And thus He is said to hate, although this is rather to love. For thus, inasmuch as He wills the good of justice or of the order of the universe, which cannot exist without the punishment or corruption of some things, God is said to hate the things whose punishment or corruption He wills. In the words of Malachi (1:3): “I have hated Esau”; and the Psalms (5:7): “You hate all workers of iniquity: You destroy all who speak a lie. The bloody and the deceitful man the Lord will abhor.”"

But I am not too sure and remain uncertain about many of these points. I hate to go around following God stating, "It says God was this way...but He didn't really mean it," or "God was just speaking by similtudes." I am not a wooden literalist (God doesn't have wings, etc), but I am unsatisfied by Aquinas in these matters.


----------



## Dachaser (Feb 11, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> You stated that, "God has wrath towards sin, is that not a Holy Anger?"
> 
> I would agree, but I am not very philosophically sophiscated and Aquinas in chapter 96 of the same Book I of the Summa Contra Gentile asserts that God truly hates nothing. So it sounds like Aquinas would disagree with you (unless we distinguish God's relations to His creatures versus God's Being in and of Himself).
> 
> ...


I would tend to see that God has emotions or whatever you prefer to term them, but they will be always perfecting in accord with His divine nature.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 11, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> I would tend to see that God has emotions or whatever you prefer to term them, but they will be always perfecting in accord with His divine nature.


I would agree.


----------



## JP Wallace (Feb 11, 2019)

There is a lot on confusion on the subject. ..... The core issues that require clarification and clarity are often:

1) That impassibility is not the same as impassivity

Michael Horton writes,

“First, it is important to define what we mean by impassibility. The Greek word _apatheia_, because it is used in Stoicism and Christian theology, may easily be misunderstood as referring to the same idea as _impassibility_. However, the apathy of indifference at which the Stoic philosopher aimed – immunity to the harm or delight that makes one’s happiness dependent on others – is far from the Christian conception. This difference in meaning is further obscured by the fact that the Latin cognate, passus, is typically understood in the English word passion to refer to emotions generally.[1]

[1] Michael Horton, _The Christian Faith: a systematic theology for pilgrims along the way_, (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan), 242-243

2) That God always is what he is, and does not "react" to circumstances in creation - nor would he ever need to since he knows all things from before the foundation of the world.

3) Thought needs to be given to the concept of what an emotion is, or how it is defined - in relation to its common definition I believe we ought not to ascribe emotions to God.

4)Clearly God "loves" etc. indeed he "is" love - since he is immutable and wholly other from us this love is different from our love, and should be thought about in connection with God's being and will which are as immutable as he is.

5) The use of analogy and anthropopathism should be kept in mind when analyzing individual texts.

Richard Muller writes,

“What is more, in the usages found in Christian tradition, immutability (or, indeed, impassibility, when the term is actually used) in no way implies an absence of relatedness, love, long-suffering, compassion, mercy, and so forth. Impassibility, when attributed to God in the Christian tradition, and specifically, in medieval and Protestant scholastic thought, indicates not a Stoic notion of apatheia, but an absence of mutation, distress, or any other sort of negative _passiones_.”


----------



## Dachaser (Feb 11, 2019)

JP Wallace said:


> There is a lot on confusion on the subject. ..... The core issues that require clarification and clarity are often:
> 
> 1) That impassibility is not the same as impassivity
> 
> ...


Which would be saying that when God is jealous for His people, it never means that God gets jealous in a human petty/envious fashion, but always in a perfected manner?


----------



## JP Wallace (Feb 11, 2019)

David
I hope you don't think I'm being pernickity, or over-precise ( though I suppose I am really!) but apart from considering how we would define "jealousy" in relation to God, a key consideration is that we exclude from out thinking any idea of God "getting" or "becoming" anything. You used the phrased "it never means that God _*gets *_jealous in a human petty/envious fashion..." - my point is that I would of necessity have to disagree with that since the phrase or synonymous phrases must not be used of God. To use such language is de facto to predicate change in God, and probably reaction as well.

Secondly, I'd say the the difference between any attribution of such things as jealousy, hate, love and so forth to God, and the attirbtuion of the same things to us is _*not *_to be located only, or exclusively, or even at all in some instances, in connection with the "moral quality" of the said jealousy, hate or love. What I mean is that the difference is not just in the fact that God is perfect, and morally pure, whereas we are polluted with sin - often the difference is of a completely different order. God is Creator, and we are creatures and that distinction is to be recognised at all times. As noted above in relation to jealousy and most other affections we must keep in mind the possibility and probabilty of God's use of anthropopathic language or analogical language to reveal himself.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Kinghezy (Feb 11, 2019)

Joshua said:


> Impassible!



You may have been targeting Star Wars, but I prefer to assume this one.


----------



## jw (Feb 11, 2019)

Kinghezy said:


> You may have been targeting Star Wars, but I prefer to assume this one.


I was using the phonetic spelling, perhaps, of a Bostonian?


----------



## Dachaser (Feb 13, 2019)

JP Wallace said:


> David
> I hope you don't think I'm being pernickity, or over-precise ( though I suppose I am really!) but apart from considering how we would define "jealousy" in relation to God, a key consideration is that we exclude from out thinking any idea of God "getting" or "becoming" anything. You used the phrased "it never means that God _*gets *_jealous in a human petty/envious fashion..." - my point is that I would of necessity have to disagree with that since the phrase or synonymous phrases must not be used of God. To use such language is de facto to predicate change in God, and probably reaction as well.
> 
> Secondly, I'd say the the difference between any attribution of such things as jealousy, hate, love and so forth to God, and the attirbtuion of the same things to us is _*not *_to be located only, or exclusively, or even at all in some instances, in connection with the "moral quality" of the said jealousy, hate or love. What I mean is that the difference is not just in the fact that God is perfect, and morally pure, whereas we are polluted with sin - often the difference is of a completely different order. God is Creator, and we are creatures and that distinction is to be recognised at all times. As noted above in relation to jealousy and most other affections we must keep in mind the possibility and probabilty of God's use of anthropopathic language or analogical language to reveal himself.


God always acts the same in any situation based upon His own nature, so His hatred and anger would always be proper and righteous!


----------

