# Impassibility question.



## earl40 (Nov 7, 2010)

Calvin writes, "Although he is beyond all disturbance of mind, yet he testifies that he is angry toward sinners. Therefore whenever we hear that God is angered, we ought not to imagine any emotion in him, but rather to consider that this expression has been taken from our own human experience, because God, whenever he is exercising judgment, exhibits the appearance of one kindled and angered."

Calvin writes "Certainly God is not sorrowful or sad; but remains forever like himself in his celestial and happy repose: yet because it could not otherwise be known how great is God's hatred and detestation of sin, therefore the Spirit accommodates himself to our capacity."

Now thanks to Ruben....I am trying to wrap my mind around the biblical concept of imapassibility and have read various post on this topic in the archives. From what I have read God does not have emotions or In other words, He does not react as we do to outside stimuli. Now if I read correctly it is acceptable that He has attitudes towards people which are predisposed on His predilection. 

So would it be OK to say that God is always "grieved" when we sin and that He is always "happy" even when we sin. In other words, His felicity is not disturbed within Himself but His attitude towards sin is always one of displeasure towards us when we sin? 

From what I gather God is ALWAYS displeased towards someone who sins but this displeasure is predicated on Him always being so towards evil.

I am sorry about the ramblings but this is a subject I would love to wrap my mind around because I know God is God and nothing can change Him in His being.


----------



## Herald (Nov 7, 2010)

earl40 said:


> So would it be OK to say that God is always "grieved" when we sin and that He is always "happy" even when we sin. In other words, His felicity is not disturbed within Himself but His attitude towards sin is always one of displeasure towards us when we sin?



Earl, it would be "OK" to view God's response to sin this way, although I would refine my wording just a tad. Anthropomorphically speaking God is grieved when we sin. But God is also completely satisfied with Himself. He is self-sustaining and self-fulfilling. In other words, even when God reacts negatively towards our sin, His reaction does not lessen His contentment with Himself. Does this make sense?


----------



## FenderPriest (Nov 7, 2010)

I think you would benefit from listening to a few lectures from K. Scott Oliphant in his Doctrine of God class. You can download the course for free on iTunes here.


----------



## TeachingTulip (Nov 7, 2010)

earl40 said:


> From what I have read God does not have emotions or In other words, He does not react as we do to outside stimuli.



God has emotions, but they do not rule Him.


----------



## AThornquist (Nov 7, 2010)

God is eternally transcendant, outside of time, but has manifested emotions in time that He sovereignly willed to manifest. They are thus not _passions_, expressions of being affected from the outside inward, but rather true _emotions_ that He willed to express as sovereign God. As Pastor Waldron has taught in our Doctrine of God class, it's as though God were the writer of a novel that has written Himself into the story; He is both in complete and utter control yet inside the story in exactly the way that He chooses. Therefore, can God be grieved? Yes. Angered? Yes. But only in the ways and times He wills to be grieved and angered _in time_!


----------



## earl40 (Nov 8, 2010)

FenderPriest said:


> I think you would benefit from listening to a few lectures from K. Scott Oliphant in his Doctrine of God class. You can download the course for free on iTunes here.


 
Any particular lecture on this subject?


----------



## FenderPriest (Nov 8, 2010)

earl40 said:


> FenderPriest said:
> 
> 
> > I think you would benefit from listening to a few lectures from K. Scott Oliphant in his Doctrine of God class. You can download the course for free on iTunes here.
> ...


His lectures on Christology will address the questions of impassibility.


----------



## Don Kistler (Nov 8, 2010)

This must be tempered with God's immutability. God cannot be happy one moment, grieved the next moment, angry a few minutes later, and so on. God does not change from one moment to the next. 

It is impossible for finite creatures to affect the infinite God in either a positive or negative way. Whatever God's disposition is come entirely from himself, not from external sources. 

Jonathan Edwards has a sermon on this, that God is the "ever-blessed God," and that therefore He can never be anything but blissfully happy.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 8, 2010)

earl40 said:


> So would it be OK to say that God is always "grieved" when we sin and that He is always "happy" even when we sin. In other words, His felicity is not disturbed within Himself but His attitude towards sin is always one of displeasure towards us when we sin?



God always disapproves of sin: and that disapproval He has been pleased to set out in terms we can relate to: of being grieved, oppressed, and angered by sin. But the fountain of joy is never diluted or stopped up.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 8, 2010)

AThornquist said:


> Therefore, can God be grieved? Yes. Angered? Yes. But only in the ways and times He wills to be grieved and angered in time!



Adding "in time" doesn't really help. God doesn't pass through transient states: the only change properly predicable of Him is in relations. Thus God's relation to you could change at the point of effectual calling, or when you repent, but He is always unchanged.


----------



## jwright82 (Nov 21, 2010)

In any problem like this I tend to step back and ask just what is the problem? Well the problem is in exactly what way those statments of God's emotions are viewed in scripture. Like the openess crowd if we view them as a one to one relation to God's very being and nature than we conclude that impassibility is unbiblical. But if we view them as traditional reformed theology has as analogical in nature, and therefore anthropomorphic, than we conclude that God is revealing something to us in our language that we could not understand otherwise, it is mysterious. In the first way we drag God down to us and reshape Him in our image, in the secod we submit to our own finite natures and understand that God is revealing to us as much as we could understand in our concepts and ideas. Just like parents cannot always explain things to their children completly, Our heavenly Father reveals only so much to us, as much as we need. So ask yourself in what way are you viewing those staments, as one to one relation or as an analogy of the situation? When we view it as reformed theology does than the problem goes away in my opinion.


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 21, 2010)

It is most appropriate when language about God is anthropomorphic or anthropopathic, because, although God has attributes that are Incommunicable, Man has been made analagous to God by God, being made in God's Image and Likeness.

In some of the language God is saying "_If_ I was a man then I would be feeling or thinking thus."

How gracious and condescending our Father is in sharing such things with us in this way.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 22, 2010)

Why is it that the Reformed Baptists are leading the way in trying to tweek this doctrine from its traditional language?


----------



## py3ak (Nov 22, 2010)

That's an interesting question. Pergamum. I'm not sure if they are leading the way, or just catching up! Certainly impassibility seems to have been an unpopular doctrine for some time now. But people need to realize that this isn't a Reformed distinctive: this is a basic part of Christian theology.


----------



## MarieP (Nov 22, 2010)

May I quote the eminent Charles Hodge?



> Love in us includes complacency and delight in its object, with the desire of possession and communion. The schoolmen, and often the philosophical theologians, tell us that there is no feeling in God. This, they say, would imply passivity, or susceptibility of impression from without, which it is assumed is incompatible with the nature of God. “We must exclude,” says Bruch. “passivity from the idea of love, as it exists in God. For God cannot be the subject of passivity in any form. Besides, if God experienced complacency in intelligent beings, He would be dependent on them; which is inconsistent with his nature as an Absolute Being.” Love, therefore, he defines as that attribute of God which secures the development of the rational universe; or, as Schleiermacher expresses it, “It is that attribute in virtue of which God communicates Himself.”
> 
> According to the philosophers, the Infinite develops itself in the finite; this fact, in theological language, is due to love. The only point of analogy between love in us and love in the Absolute and Infinite, is self-communication. Love in us leads to self-revelation and communion; in point of fact the Infinite is revealed and developed in the universe, and specially in humanity. Bruch admits that this doctrine is in real contradiction to the representations of God in the Old Testament, and in apparent contradiction to those of the New Testament. If love in God is only a name for that which accounts for the rational universe; if God is love, simply because He develops himself in thinking and conscious beings, then the word has for us no definite meaning; it reveals to us nothing concerning the real nature of God. Here again we have to choose between a mere philosophical speculation and the clear testimony of the Bible, and of our own moral and religious nature. Love of necessity involves feeling, and if there be no feeling in God, there can be no love. That He produces happiness is no proof of love. The earth does that unconsciously and without design. Men often render others happy from vanity, from fear, or from caprice. Unless the production of happiness can be referred, not only to a conscious intention, but to a purpose dictated by kind feeling, it is no proof of benevolence. And unless the children of God are the objects of his complacency and delight, they are not the objects of his love. He may be cold, insensible, indifferent, or even unconscious; He ceases to be God in the sense of the Bible, and in the sense in which we need a God, unless He can love as well as know and act. The philosophical objection against ascribing feeling to God, bears, as we have seen, within equal force against the ascription to Him of knowledge or will. If that objection be valid, He becomes to us simply an unknown cause, what men of science call force; that to which all phenomena are to be referred, but of which we know nothing. We must adhere to the truth in its Scriptural form, or we lose it altogether. We must believe that God is love in the sense in which that word comes home to every human heart. The Scriptures do not mock us when they say, “Like as a father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them that fear Him.” (Ps. ciii. 13.) He meant what He said when He proclaimed Himself as “The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering and abundant in goodness and truth.” (Ex. xxxiv. 6.) “Beloved,” says the Apostle, “let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not, knoweth not God; for God is love. In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only-begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation con our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.” (1 John iv. 7-1l.) The word love has the same sense throughout this passage. God is love; and love in Him is, in all that is essential to its nature, what love is in us. Herein we do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.



Systematic Theology - Volume I | Christian Classics Ethereal Library


----------



## earl40 (Nov 22, 2010)

What I wonder is there anybody that can get this concept to the bottom shelf so regular folks can get a hold of this concept? I say this knowing that if I am thinking this there must be a myriad of people who think there are some writings that don't read like a George Will article in the Wall Street Journal.

From what I gather on contemplating this topic, is that when it comes up most people think the concept of Imapssibility means that God has no feelings. Where I get stumped is where it says God can be grieved, pleased, displeased, or such towards His children. Now I understand and believe that His felicity does not change within Himself when we sin, but can we not say His disposition or feelings toward us can be either pleased or grieved?


----------



## py3ak (Nov 23, 2010)

Earl, that's a good question. Certain points of theology can't be simplified, because they are inherently complex, and they can't altogether be made easy because they are dealing with a reality far beyond us. But at least part of the take away is this:

You can't depress God.
God doesn't need you.
So, no matter what happens, the Fountain of joy and love, the Goodness behind and above all creation is always the same. You can't affect that: even the devil can't affect that.
And so God is always free to love, to bestow undeserved happiness on those who deserve the opposite: He is not subject to whims, mood swings, or injuries: He never loses His temper or gets fed up. 
You certainly can say that God is pleased or grieved with obedience or sin; but you can't use that kind of language to remake God into your own image, but have to understand that this is the way He chooses to relate to you.

Impassiblity is basically a denial of an improper way of attributing human characteristics to God: when we conceive of Him, we are not to think of Him as having a body; as having parts; *or as having passions*. It is a corollary of the doctrines of His independence (abundantly and beautifully maintained in Psalm 50, strikingly confirmed in Romans 11:36) and His immutability (Malachi 3:6, James 1:17, among others).

I believe it's a misunderstanding of Hodge to think that he denies any of that: classic Christian impassibility does not involve a denial that God knows or wills: in a sense, it is quite dependent on affirming that God wills, that He is His own will. Fully realized, with no potential, there is no capacity for passivity or change: He is a most pure working.
Perhaps some difficulty arises because people don't distinguish between the way of eminence and the way of negation. The Scriptural argument says, "He that made the eye, shall He not see?" It is absurd to think that the eye's Creator is blind. So any faculty or power that man possesses, it is absurd to deny to God. But when we hold that God superlatively possesses any power that humans may have been given, we also hold that He possesses them without any imperfection. God sees: but He does so without eyes and their physical limitations (such as the incapacity to see microscopically or telescopically without assistance or seeing only a part of the electromagnetic spectrum). Lacking eyes doesn't mean He lacks vision: it means He possesses better vision than eyes bestow. And so God does supremely have the capacity to love or to take vengeance; indeed, He is love, and the Lord God of Vengeance; but He loves and revenges without the imperfection of tumult, without the imperfection of chemical emotions, without the confusion and unhappiness and even the pleasing pains of our passible emotivity.
I think that a lack of attention to theological prolegomena, and unfortunate inroads from sentimental theology in various forms has left many unable to recognize the beauty and utility of impassibility. It has been attacked by many; and its defenders have been but few. But if you believe in the sovereignty of God, you should believe in His impassibility as well: they are both ways of recognizing the vast difference between God and the creature, and His independence from all that He has made.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 23, 2010)

FenderPriest said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > FenderPriest said:
> ...


 
Here is an excerpt from his upcoming book that addresses the topic of change in God http://mysite.verizon.net/oliphint/Epilogue From There to Here.htm


----------



## FenderPriest (Nov 23, 2010)

ChristianTrader said:


> FenderPriest said:
> 
> 
> > earl40 said:
> ...


Excellent. Thanks for the link. Great stuff there.


----------



## earl40 (Nov 23, 2010)

py3ak said:


> I think that a lack of attention to theological prolegomena, and unfortunate inroads from sentimental theology in various forms has left many unable to recognize the beauty and utility of impassibility. It has been attacked by many; and its defenders have been but few. But if you believe in the sovereignty of God, you should believe in His impassibility as well: they are both ways of recognizing the vast difference between God and the creature, and His independence from all that He has made.



I find this subject fascinating and am amazed how fast most run from it as fast as they can. I have brought this subject up in other reformed forums and most glaze over it as being to deep....I agree it is deep but after reading your post and many others on this subject it is really the basis of the sweetness of His grace. Personally I love a God who does not change and Who is sovereign over every single thing that goes on in the universe which includes a favorable disposition towards those who thrust in Him and the dis-favorable disposition towards those who die in unbelief.

---------- Post added at 05:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:33 PM ----------




FenderPriest said:


> Excellent. Thanks for the link. Great stuff there.



I am on the 4th part of the 24 part class and am enjoying it.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 24, 2010)

earl40 said:


> I agree it is deep but after reading your post and many others on this subject it is really the basis of the sweetness of His grace. Personally I love a God who does not change and Who is sovereign over every single thing that goes on in the universe



That's wonderful to hear, Earl.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 24, 2010)

From Oliphint's Epilogue:



> The argument itself began to form when I first became aware of, and committed to, Reformed theology in the late 70s. I remember wrestling through (for a seminar that I was to give to a group of Christians leaders) the question of the relationship of God's decree to his desire . My conclusion in that seminar was that both things are true of God, he decrees and he also desires that which he has not decreed, but that we simply are not meant to be able completely to put these truths together. I still believe that to be the case.



Hopefully the course previously linked to is of higher quality?


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 24, 2010)

py3ak said:


> From Oliphint's Epilogue:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Do you believe there is a problem with Edwards' statement that needs to be fixed?

CT


----------



## py3ak (Nov 24, 2010)

Jonathan Edwards:



> Speaking after the manner of men, God is sometimes represented as if he were moved and persuaded by the prayers of his people; yet it is not to be thought that God is properly moved or made willing by our prayers...he is self-moved... God has been pleased to constitute prayer to be antecedent to the bestowment of mercy; and he is pleased to bestow mercy in consequence of prayer, as though he were prevailed upon by prayer.



No: God has decreed the end, answering prayer, and the means, prayer being offered. My problem is with Oliphint's remark that Sanders is right to chafe at this sort of thing, and his subsequent attribution to God of desiring contrary to His own decree. If I recall correctly, you are quite fond of Turretin and loath to disagree with him: he addresses those who think that God desires what He has decreed never to effect, and if I'm not misreading his tone, dismisses that position with a certain contempt.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 24, 2010)

*Impassibility Practical*

I had some discussion about impassibility with my wife, and thought the result might be worth sharing. It is mostly her comments, with an occasional interpolation of what I said to make sense of the back and forth of an email exchange, and edited to fit together.



> Some misunderstand the doctrine of divine impassibility to state that basically God is unable to interact on our level -- to meet us at the point of our emotional need. But of course it is only saying in a way that God is ever able to do this _because_ He transcends our level, & doesn't 'need' or depend on our variable emotions. The emotional fullness we find in our relation only to Him is because He is so much more than another needy human.
> This doctrine is very practical not only for people who are constantly laboring under a sense that their sin deserves anger but for people who want their emotional needs to be fully met in God. Other people can never meet our emotional needs fully not merely because they respond at times sinfully but because by nature we are limited to response. Because God transcends emotion and sets all the terms of His relations, He can always fully meet our needs on that plane too.
> Could this be some of what you see in Hosea 11, that beautiful place where between all the emotions of jealousy & compassion & anger, he says 'for I am God and not a man' -- the Holy One in their midst and not one like themselves --therefore it will be surprisingly, love and not wrath for them? For He does not have to act in wrath, as would a man -- it's a human response He has been using to make a point, but still lisping in emotive language He asserts that He does _not_ relate on their terms -- He is God. Therefore even adultery cannot turn away His love. It's similar in Malachi: it is because God is the unchanging Lord that they are not consumed, in spite of all their iniquity.
> Those are some of the most surprising statements in Scripture -- I am the Holy One -- therefore I will _not_ visit your sin with anger. That does seem to be the most practical takeaway for the believer from the doctrine of Divine impassibility. God is not a man that I could make Him so angry that my sin could separate me from His Love.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 24, 2010)

py3ak said:


> Jonathan Edwards:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Oliphint would have no problem with the statement that God decreed the end, answering prayer, and the means, prayer being offered. He chafes at the "as if". What is lost by dropping the as if?

CT


----------



## py3ak (Nov 24, 2010)

ChristianTrader said:


> What is lost by dropping the as if?



The clarity that God's mind wasn't changed; He had always decreed that this prayer would be made, and that He would answer it. The prayer brought about no change in God. That's what the "as if" is guarding: He is not _prevailed upon_ as though infinite wisdom could be persuaded to change course: but He has decreed that it is by wrestling with the angel that we obtain what He has decreed to give us, which is why our experience can be so much like Jacob's.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 24, 2010)

py3ak said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> > What is lost by dropping the as if?
> ...



But Edwards had already stated that God is self-moved. So the question now is what do you gain by the "as if", over an above the self-moved statement?

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 24, 2010)

I am going to do some more reading on divine simplicity and immutability. I think they are at the core of my hesitancy to embrace Edwards statement.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 29, 2010)

ChristianTrader said:


> But Edwards had already stated that God is self-moved. So the question now is what do you gain by the "as if", over an above the self-moved statement?



Consistency with the earlier statement, I think.



ChristianTrader said:


> I am going to do some more reading on divine simplicity and immutability. I think they are at the core of my hesitancy to embrace Edwards statement.



I wish more people would read about divine simplicity!


----------



## FenderPriest (Nov 29, 2010)

I think the problem some might have with Edwards statement is in the philosophical terminology. I too am bothered by the "as if" language (not surprising since I am/was a student of Oliphint). 

As it relates to God's essential nature - who God is in all possible universes - God does not change. As it relates to God's _Covenantal_ nature - who he is in his condescension to us - God does respond to prayer. The Bible doesn't use "as if" language. It gives us both pictures of God, acknowledges the mystery of how they relate, and tells us to worship Him. The way God's ordained decrees intersect how he responds to prayer is clear to some level, but not entirely. The Bible presents moments where God does respond to petitions and prayers (e.g. Moses for Israel) and yet in the same breath upholds the reality of God's simplicity and impassibility without saying his responses are "as if" he were responding. 

This is ultimately seen in the person of Christ. As he was the Son of God (essential attribute) - necessary in all possible universes - he was all knowing. As he was the incarnate Christ (covenantal attribute) - not necessary in all possible universes - he grew in knowledge. It's not as though he acted _as if_ he didn't know something. The terminology takes a moment to get used to, but it's clear, orthodox, and consistent with the Westminster Standards. I think what Oliphint does in his explanation of Divine Simplicity and the Attributes is make the issues involved clearer and the mystery presented in Scripture on these things more profound and awe-inspiring.

The key to understanding what Oliphint is presenting, is to understand his terminology and to hear him out. His explanation on the attributes of God, is in my opinion, far more comprehensive and true to Scripture than any other's I've read.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 29, 2010)

FenderPriest said:


> He was God, the source of all knowledge, and yet he grew in knowledge.



But he didn't grow in knowledge _according to the divine nature_. From Christ's humanity to the divine nature, the consequence does not hold good.
Also, according to Malachi 3:6, it is the covenant Lord who does not change: otherwise, we would be consumed. Whether _ad nos_ or _in se_ change is only improperly attributed of God.


----------



## FenderPriest (Nov 29, 2010)

py3ak said:


> FenderPriest said:
> 
> 
> > He was God, the source of all knowledge, and yet he grew in knowledge.
> ...


Potentially my edit - which I tried to do quickly! - will help here. I think you're raising an issue here that's not an issue in Oliphint's work.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 29, 2010)

FenderPriest said:


> Potentially my edit - which I tried to do quickly! - will help here. I think you're raising an issue here that's not an issue in Oliphint's work.



Perhaps, but I wasn't responding to Oliphint. I don't see what the issue is with the "as if"; but I am concerned when the classic view of anthropopathism does not seem to be upheld. It's a pretty basic Christian hermeneutical principle.


----------



## FenderPriest (Nov 29, 2010)

py3ak said:


> FenderPriest said:
> 
> 
> > Potentially my edit - which I tried to do quickly! - will help here. I think you're raising an issue here that's not an issue in Oliphint's work.
> ...


Here's a reason why I'm not a fan of the phrase: "God acts _as if_ he responds to prayer" seems to me to say that God is simply pretending to relate with us, but that he's really just telling us to go through the motions of prayer because he likes the show. "As if" language about things that Scripture doesn't say "as if" about makes the relationship God is in with us seem less certain, less covenantal. God really is committed to our good and really does respond to our prayers. "As if" language undermines the Christians confidence in God's commitment to his promises to us. I understand why people would want to us the phrase, but I think little is gained in its use in light of the dangers of what it teaches about the nature of our relationship with God. As for anthropomorphism, I think essential/covenantal attributes language upholds that reality just fine and in better terms of what is and is not anthropomorphic about truths of God.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 29, 2010)

Unless you can find someone using "as if" language who says that prayer is a meaningless ritual, you don't have anything beyond your feelings to say that this is what it communicates. You speak of its dangers, but offer no proof that it is dangerous. This is very basic Reformed theology: God ordains the end, and the means. So did Moses change God's mind about destroying the Israelites? The Christian heart will not accept that conclusion: God is not a man that he should lie, neither the son of man, that he should repent. So was Moses' prayer futile? By no means; as a type of Christ, Moses showed that it is not without the interposition of a Mediator that God is gracious to his people in forgiving their sins.
I don't wish to comment on Oliphint because I don't know much about him, but what is dangerous is any idea that a distinction between essential/covenantal attributes can function as a substitute for the hermeneutical category of anthropomorphism. There are probably too many disparate topics to be able to discuss them conveniently in one thread (such as, all our knowledge of God is _ad nos_, not _in se_), but let me point out that even within the covenant God never sleeps (per express Scripture) even if he is said to awake.


----------



## FenderPriest (Nov 29, 2010)

py3ak said:


> Unless you can find someone using "as if" language who says that prayer is a meaningless ritual, you don't have anything beyond your feelings to say that this is what it communicates. You speak of its dangers, but offer no proof that it is dangerous. This is very basic Reformed theology: God ordains the end, and the means. So did Moses change God's mind about destroying the Israelites? The Christian heart will not accept that conclusion: God is not a man that he should lie, neither the son of man, that he should repent. So was Moses' prayer futile? By no means; as a type of Christ, Moses showed that it is not without the interposition of a Mediator that God is gracious to his people in forgiving their sins.
> I don't wish to comment on Oliphint because I don't know much about him, but what is dangerous is any idea that a distinction between essential/covenantal attributes can function as a substitute for the hermeneutical category of anthropomorphism. There are probably too many disparate topics to be able to discuss them conveniently in one thread (such as, all our knowledge of God is _ad nos_, not _in se_), but let me point out that even within the covenant God never sleeps (per express Scripture) even if he is said to awake.


 
Ruben, I appreciate your engagement, but I don't disagree with anything you've said, and feel that you're attacking a straw man rather than the issue at hand. Nonetheless, I have nothing further to say on this matter.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 29, 2010)

Jacob, I understand if you need to bow out, but I think it's a little unfair to say I'm attacking a straw man and not give me any pointers on where I go astray.


----------



## FenderPriest (Nov 29, 2010)

Indeed Ruben, unfair on my part. Please forgive me.

It has seemed to me that in raising questions about the use of "as if" you've implied that one might not be orthodox. This may have been a miss-reading on my part, but it struck me that you were responding to me as though I were denying Simplicity, Impassibility, or what you've been saying about the relationship between God's Decrees and his means or acheiving his end - all of which I've agreed with - simply because I am not a fan (for good reasons, I think) of using "as if" in describing these things. Thus, it has seemed to me that you haven't really been responding to me, or seeking clarity on the issue. I admit, this may be a misreading on my part and would account for my disinterest in further conversation. If I've misread, please forgive me.



py3ak said:


> Unless you can find someone using "as if" language who says that prayer is a meaningless ritual, you don't have anything beyond your feelings to say that this is what it communicates. You speak of its dangers, but offer no proof that it is dangerous.


The "proof" I offered was in my example. You didn't really engage what I said there, and simply swat it aside as my feelings. It's not my feelings, but my own attempt to process the phrase in terms of trying to help people understand God's impassiblity and the unintentional effects it could have in a person's processing. I think my use of the word "dangers" was a misstep on this point, but I do not think it is best in articulating Impassibility and Simplicity.

Furthermore, on this issue - especially as it relates to Oliphint's articulation of this doctrine - I recommend reading Reasons for Faith: Philosophy in the Service of Theology by K. Scott Oliphint, especially Part 4 of the book where he works through in detail the things that I've said here.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 29, 2010)

FenderPriest said:


> Indeed Ruben, unfair on my part. Please forgive me.
> 
> It has seemed to me that in raising questions about the use of "as if" you've implied that one might not be orthodox. This may have been a miss-reading on my part, but it struck me that you were responding to me as though I were denying Simplicity, Impassibility, or what you've been saying about the relationship between God's Decrees and his means or acheiving his end - all of which I've agreed with - simply because I am not a fan (for good reasons, I think) of using "as if" in describing these things. Thus, it has seemed to me that you haven't really been responding to me, or seeking clarity on the issue. I admit, this may be a misreading on my part and would account for my disinterest in further conversation. If I've misread, please forgive me.
> 
> ...


 
Thanks, Jacob, I appreciate that. Certainly some denials or adjustments of anthropomorphism could be unorthodox (the Anthropomorphites, for instance), but of course each individual case would have to be dealt with on its merits. I'm sure almost no theologically educated person denies simplicity; that doesn't, of course, mean that different ways of speaking are equally consistent with it. But I think I can assure you that when I think you're unorthodox you'll know!

As far as the "as if" language that Edwards employs, I think I have shown that it does serve a function, and a legitimate function. After all, God isn't persuaded in the sense of being overcome by persistence or better informed by argument. I understand that it might strike you in a certain way; of course, it doesn't strike me in that way, which is why I pointed out that something more is necessary. If it can be shown that Edwards, or others who use "as if" language, do think of God's relation to us in less covenantal terms, then there is a case for the language being dangerous; but in that case a safer alternative must be found, lest we do give the impression that God changes.


----------



## earl40 (Dec 24, 2010)

py3ak said:


> If it can be shown that Edwards, or others who use "as if" language, do think of God's relation to us in less covenantal terms, then there is a case for the language being dangerous; but in that case a safer alternative must be found, lest we do give the impression that God changes.


 

Having listened to Dr. Oliphint the past month he does indeed say that God does change *covenantally * but not in His essential nature. I can understand where Jesus can change His emotions based on His humanity because He took on the limitations of humanity in the incarnation. Where the problem arises, from what I can see, is did God take on the nature of humanity before the incarnation? If Dr. Oliphint is correct in that God "covenantally changes" before the incarnation I see no other way to say that God is impassible.

Personally I see no problem saying that God *appears* to change.

So more two quick questions.
#1. Was Jesus impassible before the Resurrection. (In His Humanity of course)
#2. Is Jesus impassible after the Resurrection.


----------



## Peairtach (Dec 24, 2010)

> So more two quick questions.
> #1. Was Jesus impassible before the Resurrection. (In His Humanity of course)
> #2. Is Jesus impassible after the Resurrection.



Jesus _in His humanity_ was not and is not omnipotent, omnipresent or omniscient. Being human He also has human emotions - without sin, it goes without saying.

I have a Q regarding impassibility too. 

Is the orthodox doctrine 

(a)that God is devoid of feelings altogether and just has an intellect and will?

or 

(b) that God does have feelings/emotions but that they are in many ways very different to ours, completely steady and without negativity?


----------



## earl40 (Dec 25, 2010)

Richard Tallach said:


> > So more two quick questions.
> > #1. Was Jesus impassible before the Resurrection. (In His Humanity of course)
> > #2. Is Jesus impassible after the Resurrection.
> 
> ...


 

Is love or hate a feeling? I hear many say love is more than a feeling but this presupposes that there is feeling in love. I read earlier where someone said God does not have emotions but attitudes.


----------



## py3ak (Dec 25, 2010)

Richard Tallach said:


> > So more two quick questions.
> > #1. Was Jesus impassible before the Resurrection. (In His Humanity of course)
> > #2. Is Jesus impassible after the Resurrection.
> 
> ...


 
I suppose you would have to define feeling. God has dispositions. But there are two things to bear in mind. One is that in God's simplicity there isn't a difference between His essence and His attributes. So technically, it is not that God _has_ a will, but He is His will, intellect, etc. The second is that there is a difference of almost inconceivable breadth between God's intellect or will and ours. For instance, God does not reason; He does not think of one thing and then another. He knows everything in His own essence. So that it can be a misleading analogy to say, "Man has an intellect, will, and emotions and is made in the image of God: consequently God has an intellect, will and emotion."


----------



## Peairtach (Dec 25, 2010)

> So that it can be a misleading analogy to say, "Man has an intellect, will, and emotions and is made in the image of God: consequently God has an intellect, will and emotion."



But on the part of those who are (rightly) defending God's immutability and impassibility there is more of a willingness to talk about God's mind and will than God's emotions/feelings (?) Is this correct?

I recognise that our mind and will are very different yet in some sense analogical to God's, but I'm exploring where that leaves the idea of feeling/emotion. The idea of _disposition_ may be a key because it conveys the idea of feeling regulated by will and mind. 

Recognising that God's will and mind are unchangeable and that His emotions/feelings are bound up with His will and mind, we can understand a little better how e.g. the Crucifixion of Christ - to take the classical example often given of God suffering (emotionally and mentally) - did not mean that He suffered. 

Because His feelings were regulated by His mind and will, e.g. He knew the end from the beginning, so why would He suffer in e.g. His feelings, as Moltmann and others have proposed.

God is a dispositional Rock. And that is the God ''we need".

_For their rock is not like our Rock, as even our enemies concede.(Deut 32:31, NIV) _

Of course we know that God, although impassible, is not "cold-hearted", from very many passages such as this one:

_But you, O Lord, are a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness. (Ps 86:15, ESV)_

and because in Christ we see what God is like when He takes to Himself a human soul and body.


----------

