Contemplating intently on the dual nature of Jesus.

Status
Not open for further replies.

earl40

Puritan Board Professor
I have been in long discussions with some dear Christians about the impassibility of God and how in His divine essence God does not have anger as a proper quality of His being. I do not wish to discuss that issue in that I have seen that most (including most reformed church members and I suspect many RE's and deacons) mistake that issue in that they redefine "passions" as stated, or at least understood, by those who drafted the WCF. Along with Our Lord God's impassibility the discussion of how the word "condescend" is used in the confession. I am amazed how most confuse the incorrect teaching of Barth with the orthodox teaching that states God is "wholly other" or any other type of phrase that says God is a different "class of being" which we as humans will never comprehend in any way other than through condescension.

So is their a resource that discusses how Jesus took on a human nature, which includes a human soul, and how this would show that the human soul or spirit is not the same as God's Spirit? The reason I ask is because the mistaken idea that when God created Adam and Eve in His "image and likeness" this is used against the orthodox teaching of God's being is in some way the same as our human soul.
 
Last edited:
First thing that came to mind was Donald Macleod's Person of Christ

Thank you. I just woke up from a nap (I work off hours at the hospital now and then) a realized the question I asked was maybe a little silly in that of course we know how The Son took on humanity. Discussions on the difference between man and God are out there and rather metaphysical which is a problem in that many run away from such thinking and believe to do such is equated with the Hellenisation of Christianity. I guess I simply stumbled on to an apologetic that I am sure has been used before which would be....The human nature of Jesus, which has a soul, is a human soul and not a divine soul. I am pleased the word consubstantial is in the Chalcedonian Creed for this is exactingly the issue I have been discussing in that Adam may have been made in the likeness and image of God though that likeness and image is not in any way like unto the divine essence of God.
 
Last edited:
Just typing a thought.....Is God "visible" to angels as well as to those people who are with Him in heaven? I can see where God can manifest His divine Spirit to spirits but this is still a condensation of Himself to both angels and departed men. Thank you for your time and patience. :)
 
I think the usual expression/understanding of the Reformed is that man was created analogous to God, although, not having incommunicable attributes like omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence, he is a finite analogy.

Most/all Reformed systematic theologies have a section discussing how Man was/is made in God's likeness and image. Some theologians emphasise some things more than others re the image and likeness, so it's worth reading a few to get a more comprehensive idea of the possible meaning/s.

The fact that God became Man in His image and likeness, means that His people now have an image to worship, that is Christ, Who is God, and the express image of God.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
 
http://www.amazon.com/Christ-Eastern-Christian-Thought-Meyendorff/dp/0881418676/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1414889560&sr=8-1&keywords=Christ+in+eastern+christian+thoughtWithout endorsing some of his Eastern Orthodox conclusions, John McGuckin's book on Cyril skillfully deals with these issues. Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy. I don't think McGuckin deals with all of the problems in Cyril's thought, but it's a magnificent read.

Also see (much cheaper but just as good) John Meyendorff's Christ in Eastern Christian thought (sorry about the second commandment violation. Can't be helped with SVS press).
 
I think the usual expression/understanding of the Reformed is that man was created analogous to God, although, not having incommunicable attributes like omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence, he is a finite analogy.

Most/all Reformed systematic theologies have a section discussing how Man was/is made in God's likeness and image. Some theologians emphasise some things more than others re the image and likeness, so it's worth reading a few to get a more comprehensive idea of the possible meaning/s.

The fact that God became Man in His image and likeness, means that His people now have an image to worship, that is Christ, Who is God, and the express image of God.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

I agree Richard, and have found that many Christians who attend and profess the WCF are essentially Lutheran on these issues because of a reluctance to "distinguish" between the human nature and divine nature of our Lord Jesus. I have found that because some give more emphasis to one area I suspect that this neglect can and does lead to functional Lutheran beliefs. All the more reason to keep on reforming our faith in this life to Who Jesus is (God and man) and what He accomplished on the cross. I hope this line of posts encourages all here to not stop studying Our Lord Jesus even when one become an Elder, Deacons, or laymen in the pew, the last which I am a happy for in the current calling of God in our local assembly. :)
 
Christ in Eastern Christian Thought: John Meyendorff: 9780881418675: Amazon.com: BooksWithout endorsing some of his Eastern Orthodox conclusions, John McGuckin's book on Cyril skillfully deals with these issues. Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy. I don't think McGuckin deals with all of the problems in Cyril's thought, but it's a magnificent read.

Also see (much cheaper but just as good) John Meyendorff's Christ in Eastern Christian thought (sorry about the second commandment violation. Can't be helped with SVS press).

My middle name is Cyril. Earl Cyril. Always love it! :) Thanx for the references.:)
 
God does not have rage as part of his attributes. God doesn't have passions that would cause him to go out of control.
Psalm 7 does say God is angry at the wicked every day.
People have crimes of passions where they lose control. God may indeed get angry but doesn't lose control and continues ot make the best choices.

I don't agree with language like 'altogether other' or 'wholly other' since God frequently uses language of analogy for Himself. Trancendent would be a better word choice.

For the dual nature of Christ, the councel of Chalcedon would be a good place to look but it's more of a set of boundaries. Jesus divine and human natures are such that it doesn't mean this this this and this...
 
God does not have rage as part of his attributes. God doesn't have passions that would cause him to go out of control.
Psalm 7 does say God is angry at the wicked every day. God;s anger may be described as wrath after his long suffering is spent, but it isn't an out of control rage
People have crimes of passions where they lose control. God may indeed get angry but doesn't lose control and continues ot make the best choices.

I don't agree with language like 'altogether other' or 'wholly other' since God frequently uses language of analogy for Himself. Trancendent would be a better word choice.

For the dual nature of Christ, the councel of Chalcedon would be a good place to look but it's more of a set of boundaries. Jesus divine and human natures are such that it doesn't mean this this this and this...
 
God does not have rage as part of his attributes. God doesn't have passions that would cause him to go out of control.
Psalm 7 does say God is angry at the wicked every day. God;s anger may be described as wrath after his long suffering is spent, but it isn't an out of control rage
People have crimes of passions where they lose control. God may indeed get angry but doesn't lose control and continues ot make the best choices.

I don't agree with language like 'altogether other' or 'wholly other' since God frequently uses language of analogy for Himself. Trancendent would be a better word choice.

For the dual nature of Christ, the councel of Chalcedon would be a good place to look but it's more of a set of boundaries. Jesus divine and human natures are such that it doesn't mean this this this and this...

I hear you and understand where you are comming from. I encourage you to listen to this......http://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc237/ .... and read this.....http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/figurative-descriptions-god-48694/

A great way to spend the afternoon after church. :)
 

Below are some quotes that I shall comment on. :)

"Impassibility means God cannot suffer and is incapable of being acted upon by an external force."

This I would agree with though I would added two words as seen in the bold portion below below to this quote.

Impassibility means God cannot suffer and is incapable of being acted upon by an external or internal force. The reason is if God changes anything about Himself be it from outside or inside He would be mutable.



"The early church held it as self-evident that the eternal God was unchangeable and impassible."

I agree with the above though no doubt some equivocation should be allowed in that I know many people who take no exceptions to the WCF without the knowledge that they really would take some exceptions if "pressed" into defining words in the confession, or by the original intent of the framers of the confession. I think the same would go for some of the early church.

"Irenaeus writing in the second century says, ―The [Gnostics] endow God with human affections
and emotions. However, if they had known the Scriptures, and had been taught by the truth, they
would have known beyond doubt that God is not like men. His thoughts are not like the thoughts
of men. For the Father of all is at a vast distance from those dispositions and passions that
operate among men."


The "distance" described is many times mistaken for quantitative distance and not qualitative difference. In other words, God is not more angry than man (quantity) but God the quality or essence of God's is different than man's anger. In other words, God is not or was ever an angry God as atributed to His esence.

"Origen was among the first theologians, but certainly not the last, who wanted to maintain that God was both impassible and impassioned. He wanted to defend that God is absolutely other and completely unlike the created world with its changing states. But at the same time, he wanted to do justice to the rich emotional language the Bible employs with reference to God. The God of the Church Fathers was impassible but not dispassionate."

Here we have Origen saying God is "absolutely other" and if I read earlier in a post someone said they would not be comfortable with using "wholly other" when describing God. I ask,was Origen not saying God is "wholly other" when he writes God is "absolutely other"?

Either God is impassible or passionate and there is no in between both polls. Now in stating this I think the point may have been made by Origen that God is indeed very involved or appears to be passionate. In other words, maybe Origen is saying God is very active in working in the creation and thus "passionate" or active in His work. If so this would be a totally different definition of impassibility and I do not know enough about Origen to comment further than my speculation of exactly Origen meant when he says God is both "impassible but not dispassionate" and Kevin DeYoung no doubt knows much more than I about Origen so I will only speculate and I hope you take it as such as mere speculation of what he meant.

", the Westminster Confession of Faith states: "There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions;"

Indeed it says lacks or has no passions and to think God, in His essence, has any or more passions is not what it says.

"The Confession has no problem saying God is, on the one hand, immutable and impassible
while, on the other hand, still calling him long-suffering and describing his just passionate hatred
for sin. This is not an indifferent God."


The words "long-suffering" in the confession is not saying God suffers (or has passions) in His essence but is to convey that to our eyes He is long-suffering. Also I have no problem thinking God is and always was against evil or sin, though of course Our Lord is outside of time and thus any disposition of hatred or anger should not be predicated to His divine essence.

"First, the context is defining what it means for God to be a ―most pure Spirit. Without body,
parts, or passions is meant to guard against the idea that God consisted of any material elements
or experiences bodily sensations."


The context in the confession is not linking lack of body parts "pure Spirit" with "parts". This is a common mistake. It is saying God does indeed lack material "pure Spirit" and that He is simple not composed of "parts" of love or truth or any other attribute.

Second, Ligon Duncan has an excellent article where he looks at Charles Hodge, A.A. Hodge,
William G.T. Shedd, and Robert Dabney and their approach to this line in the Confession. Dr.
Duncan concludes that all four believed in impassibility but also affirmed some kinds of feelings
or human-like emotions in God.


I am not familure with the men above on what they believed BUT if they believed the above they would be incorrect because God does not have feelings or human-like emotions. God, in His divine nature, is absolutely different and there is no one "like" Him.


'Third, there is a rich history in Christian thinking of distinguishing between passions and
affections. We‘ll come back to this in a moment because it is hugely significant in how we think
of emotions, but let me just sketch the difference briefly. Both Augustine and Aquinas
distinguished between passions, which were passive and involuntary, and affections, which were
active and voluntary. Affections were the consequence of right reason. Passions were disordered
and misguided, and therefore were often associated with sinful inclinations. I‘m not sure the
Westminster Confession was self-consciously standing in this tradition, but this certainly was the
tradition many theologians stood in. Passions did not refer to passionate feeling. They referred to
the sorts of emotions that sweep over you and threaten to control you. Clearly, God can have no
part in these passions."


This comes down to....Does God "control" His passions which the WCF denies He has? If so you have a God that is not immutable because if He "controls" them He is actively either changing, or holding back, something within Himself.

"Though unchangeable in himself, God lives the life of his creatures,
and is not indifferent to their changing activities."


God does not "live the lives of His creatures" He is in providential control of all creation via His inscrutable will and as such He is indeed not indifferent.

"I can‘t stress this enough. To be impassible is not to be passionless."

I can't stress this enough....To be impassible is to be passionless or as our WCF states specificaly "without passions".

"God is so dynamic, so active that he cannot change to be any more active or dynamic."

How can a divine being be "dynamic" and still be immutable. I think we have a change of what the definition of what dynamic means.

"Clearly, in one sense it is patently obvious that God has an emotional life. Scripture tell us God is grieved; he is angry; he rejoices; he is moved to pity, full of mercy, overflowing in love. So if
anger and joy and pity are emotions, then God has emotions."


This came before the part about the distinction in the human nature of Jesus and the context does say it is "patently obvious that God has an emotional life". This is an assumption that is not as "patently obvious" as stated.

"God‘s emotional life as nothing but a human way of talking about God (anthropopathism), the
price will be too high. We‘ll be left with a God that seems hallow and distant."


Contrary to what Kevin says the "emotional life" as described in scripture are indeed anthropopathisms. I know Calvin taught such and I think this would show there are many more who also taught such....http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/figurative-descriptions-god-48694/

"He makes decisions based on his own immutable will and unchangeable purposes not on changing emotional states."

God does not "make" decisions even within Himself. To assume such has God changing and not immutable.

"When Vanhoozer calls divine emotions a concerned-based construal loaded with value, he‘s
using super-smart language to say God is interested in the world he created. And he‘s always
sizing up what is going on. Then he makes a value judgment of what‘s going on based on his
character and purposes. His construal of the situation results in anger or grief or joy or love
directed toward some object."


Nothing causes "interest" in God. He also does not "size up" and "make" a "value judgment" which results in Him being angry or grieved. We are to look at scripture to see "as if" He does these things but in no way think His essence is not blessed and happy within Himself.

"If we are equating emotions with the old sense of passions, then God doesn‘t have emotions. But if we are talking about affections, he does. God‘s emotions are cognitive affections involving his
construal of a situation.


Here we have the plain statement of God "involving his construal of a situation". No matter how one cuts it this is a statement that says God looks at a situation and acts or generates emotions based of the situation. Once again this is a God Who is not immutable.

"Most of what we call emotion in God is his evaluation of what is happening with his creation. So God has real emotions but they are always active. They are not forced upon him. They are not dictated by others. God‘s inner emotional life suffers no change because his emotions come from his objective, always true, value-based construals.As we talk about God‘s emotional life we must keep this in mind: his changing external emotions are but a reflection of his inner, unchanging nature and character. These emotional "changes" in God relate to the temporal changes in his creatures."

To have "active emotions" is to have a God with active change within His divine being. It would better to use the proper word "active affections".

"The only way to make sense of this is to understand that on one level God can regret and on another level it is impossible for him to have regret."

A better way to state the above would be as follows..........The only way to make sense of this is to understand that on one level God can be seen as if He regrets and on another level it is impossible for him to have regret which is proper to His divine essence.

"God is sorry in this passage because Saul has changed, but this does not mean God has changed.
The change in God is a response to a change in someone else. In fact, God‘s ―change‖ is a
manifestation of his unchanging character. God‘s passion for the glory of his name, his passion
for righteousness and justice never change. But when the external world changes God‘s
relationship to that world also changes. So when Saul‘s behavior changed, God, immutable in
nature and purpose, chose to respond to Saul in a different way in order to be true to himself.
God changed his mind in order to not change his mind."


Either God changed His mind (nope) or God changed Saul. It appeared as if God changed His mind to our eyes, but in reality God changed Saul according to His good and perfect will.

"God cannot be tempted, but we can affirm Jesus was tempted because what can be said about the Son of God in his existence as a man is not always true about God as God."

Statements like this chill me because I know many mistake Jesus having inner compulsions to sin that He resisted. I say this hoping Kevin does not believe such. For The Sermon On The Mount would condemn such teaching and I will give Kevin the judgment of charity in that I trust he does not teach such of Our Lord's humanity.

"This unchanging God – who is ontologically outside of our mess – is nevertheless intimately
involved in our mess, which makes his presence all the more meaningful."


He is indeed ontologically different or absolutly, wholly different.



"In the Triune Godhead there is a constant fullness of mercy, joy, and goodness to which we cannot add and from which we cannot subtract."

Amen.
 
Last edited:
Any edits, or retractions, I should make to the previous post I shall do later. Have a blessed Lord's Day. :)
 
Modern defenders of impassibility point out that the term means God is not overcome with human emotions. I think that is certainly true, and the free-floating Greek monadic view of impassibility is wildly at odds with the biblical text.
 
Unfortunately it seems that many modern defenders of impassibility are not actually defending it at all. The doctrine of impassibility does not stand on its own; it is inextricably linked to the doctrines of simplicity and immutability.

In the modern day we tend to think very highly of our hermeneutical abilities, but it doesn't speak terribly well of our methodological self-awareness if we don't recognize divine accommodation in revelation, and specifically in the categories of anthropomorphism and anthropopathism. If humanlike emotions are attributed to God on the basis of the Biblical text, then humanlike thoughts and volitions must also be attributed to God on the basis of similar predications in the Biblical text. At this point we have God finding things out after closer investigation; God altering his plans on that basis of that new information; and God saddened. All of those contradict explicit testimonies of Scripture.

And the god who results from that kind of reading of Genesis is the god of open theism - a god who is undoubtedly rather more like President Clinton ("I feel your pain") than like the supreme beauty who sets all the universe in motion. But there isn't a logical or textual reason to treat the presentations of God as humanlike in his thought or will as figurative and the presentations of God as humanlike in his affections as literal. The doctrine of eternal blessedness exercises the same kind of control over our interpretation of the language attributing rage, grief, and the rest to God as the doctrine of omniscience exercises over our interpretation of the language of recollection and investigation. The distinction between proper and figurative is not some exquisite philosophical invention but a plain necessity imposed upon us by the text of Scripture;1 Samuel 15 is a particularly clear example.

It is a blessed inconsistency when those who deny impassibility or so qualify it as to make it meaningless don't deny omniscience or sovereignty; but the hermeneutic that lets omniscience qualify Genesis 11:5 is the same hermeneutic that lets immutability qualify Genesis 6:6. The bogeyman of an indifferent or uncaring God can easily be laid to rest with the reflection that God is the judge of all the earth: that's rather too much concern and involvement for most people right there. It is not essential to his being judge, or Father, or anything divine that we should attribute to him in a proper sense recollection, reconsideration, or regret.
 
Last edited:
Modern defenders of impassibility point out that the term means God is not overcome with human emotions. I think that is certainly true, and the free-floating Greek monadic view of impassibility is wildly at odds with the biblical text.

Can you cite an example of any Christian or Christian Pastor that holds to a free-floating Greek monadic view?
 
Not sure what you mean by free-floating Greek monadic view. I believe Francis Schaefer looked at 'God being without Passions' as God is not overcome with human emotions. I think in his lectures at Wheaton College on the Westminster Confession said the use of Passions changed over the years Note the use of ocassion in the 2008 letter on the Frances Shaeffer website "... the real world, to the creation of God, the world of God’s interest and passion...."

Jonathan Edwards didn't seem to have a problem with the title 'Sinners in the hands of an Angry God' Was that a deliberate attempt to try and clarify 'the passions of God'? Long suffering,

The book from circa 2000 on 'God's Passion for God's glory' also comes to mind, Piper's book on Edward's 'The end for which God create the world' Not irrational passions, but purposeful.

Verses on the dual nature of Christ include John 2 'tear down this body and in 3 days I will raise it again' Human enough to die; divine enough to raise him human body. And of course Romans 'the church redeems by the blood of God'
 
Last edited:
Not sure what you mean by free-floating Greek monadic view. I believe Francis Schaefer looked at 'God being without Passions' as God is not overcome with human emotions. I think in his lectures at Wheaton College on the Westminster Confession said the use of Passions changed over the years Note the use of ocassion in the 2008 letter on the Frances Shaeffer website "... the real world, to the creation of God, the world of God’s interest and passion...."

God does not have passions or emotions according to His divinity. The problem is that many say "God is not overcome with human emotions" as to say God controls His passions or emotions. This is simply incorrect in that God does not "control" anything within His being. I say this to only point out this is a VERY HARD concept to apprehend and I fear many if not most people in our congreagations think that impassiblity is "God controling His emotions or passions".

Jonathan Edwards didn't seem to have a problem with the title 'Sinners in the hands of an Angry God' Was that a deliberate attempt to try and clarify 'the passions of God'? Long suffering,

The book from circa 2000 on 'God's Passion for God's glory' also comes to mind, Piper's book on Edward's 'The end for which God create the world' Not irrational passions, but purposeful.

Verses on the dual nature of Christ include John 2 'tear down this body and in 3 days I will raise it again' Human enough to die; divine enough to raise him human body. And of course Romans 'the church redeems by the blood of God'

I am sure Edwards would have no problem with stating his sermon should be understood that we are to view God "as if" He were angry. So far as Long suffering I am sure Edwards meant it is to be viewed from our perspective and not Our Lord having any suffering within His divine essence.

:)
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately it seems that many modern defenders of impassibility are not actually defending it at all. The doctrine of impassibility does not stand on its own; it is inextricably linked to the doctrines of simplicity and immutability.

In the modern day we tend to think very highly of our hermeneutical abilities, but it doesn't speak terribly well of our methodological self-awareness if we don't recognize divine accommodation in revelation, and specifically in the categories of anthropomorphism and anthropopathism. If humanlike emotions are attributed to God on the basis of the Biblical text, then humanlike thoughts and volitions must also be attributed to God on the basis of similar predications in the Biblical text. At this point we have God finding things out after closer investigation; God altering his plans on that basis of that new information; and God saddened. All of those contradict explicit testimonies of Scripture.

And the god who results from that kind of reading of Genesis is the god of open theism - a god who is undoubtedly rather more like President Clinton ("I feel your pain") than like the supreme beauty who sets all the universe in motion. But there isn't a logical or textual reason to treat the presentations of God as humanlike in his thought or will as figurative and the presentations of God as humanlike in his affections as literal. The doctrine of eternal blessedness exercises the same kind of control over our interpretation of the language attributing rage, grief, and the rest to God as the doctrine of omniscience exercises over our interpretation of the language of recollection and investigation. The distinction between proper and figurative is not some exquisite philosophical invention but a plain necessity imposed upon us by the text of Scripture;1 Samuel 15 is a particularly clear example.

It is a blessed inconsistency when those who deny impassibility or so qualify it as to make it meaningless don't deny omniscience or sovereignty; but the hermeneutic that lets omniscience qualify Genesis 11:5 is the same hermeneutic that lets immutability qualify Genesis 6:6. The bogeyman of an indifferent or uncaring God can easily be laid to rest with the reflection that God is the judge of all the earth: that's rather too much concern and involvement for most people right there. It is not essential to his being judge, or Father, or anything divine that we should attribute to him in a proper sense recollection, reconsideration, or regret.

Well noted Ruben. One of the basic hermeneutical principles of Reformed theology is the Archetypal/Ectypal distinction. James White debated a guy who wrote a book explaining why he was no longer Reformed. He stated that he did not believe in univocal thinking but said that God must be understood by some analogy that man can call just or it is not just. Consequently, he rejected Reformed orthodoxy because, measured against human ways of thinking, God could not be just and merciful. This was completely backards. Analogical thinking does not make man the measure. It recognizes that ectypal theology is, at best, accommodated to our creaturely understanding. When we recognize that God is incomprehensible we are acknowledging that He is the Creator and we are the creatures. His knowledge is not quantitatively different than our own but qualitatively. He is Divine, we are created.
 
' Sinners in the hands of a God who acts as if he was angry' doesn't have the same edge...
but... ok... I don't like using a phrase 'self control' with God... saying it negatively is ok with me. God doesn't have types of emotions where he can go into an uncontrolled rage is fine with me or saying flatly God cannot Anger can be an extension of love, God's wrath protects his holiness
 
Well noted Ruben. One of the basic hermeneutical principles of Reformed theology is the Archetypal/Ectypal distinction.

Is there a good on line resource that does not equivocate on Archetypal/Ectypal terminology like we see in the redefinition of impassibility?
 
Is there a good on line resource that does not equivocate on Archetypal/Ectypal terminology like we see in the redefinition of impassibility?

Abraham Kuyper's Encyclopedia of Sacred Theology. It is available at archive.org.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top