Impassibility question.

[FenderPriest]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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?

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]

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.