Of course you can believe what you will. But, for the third time, the assertion that God did not experience emotion as a result of the choices of His creation, simply ignores or nullifies the multiple scriptures that say otherwise.
Agreed
Is God Passible?
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by a SATS prof, Jan 4, 2016.
Page 3 of 5
-
-
-
Martin,
Here are a couple more quotes and comments regarding the topic that may be of interest:
“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 God’s hatred and distention of sin, therefore the spirit accommodates Himself to our capacity. This figure which represents God as transfiguring to Himself what is peculiar to human nature is called ἀνθρωποπάθεια” (Calvin, Genesis 6).
“The Prophet testifies that God, in order to alleviate the distress and afflictions of His people, Himself bore their burdens; not that He can in anyway endure anguish, but by very customary figure of speech, He assumes and applies to Himself human passions.” (Calvin, On Isaiah)
In his book “The Passion of God,” McWilliams comments that Anselm’s position is that God is impassible and only appears compassionate to us. His essence is not marked by any real emotion. Thomas Aquinas holds that God is actus purus and cannot experience any change, contingency, or emotion. Martin Luther was the only major Reformer to challenge impassibility (also, there were the Soninians and some Anabaptists). -
One thing that I dislike is that "Impassibility" is explained every jot and tittle by the Neo-Orthodox and some folks here simply adopt their language RE: "Anthropomorphic" - an explanation of what cannot be fathomed of God put into human comparative semantics which we can understand.
Genesis 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
Now I am no free theology buff but I can't accept the anthropomorphic explanation. So, somehow our Almighty Omni-everything God was sorry that He made man and it grieved Him at His heart. Why are reluctant to accept this?
Way off in the distant past of my KJVO upbringing I hear another passage:
Romans 3:4 ... let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written...
So I have categorized the "Impassibility" of God not as "anthropomorphic" but under the umbrella of "mystery".
I believe we have lost something by being afraid to acknowledge that there are mysteries connected to our God.
HankD -
preachinjesus Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Hank, just curious but do you accept that there is anthropomorphic language about God in the Bible?
How are to understand passages like Isaiah 48:13 (God's hands) or 2 Samuel 22:7 (God's ears)?
Does God, particularly God the Father, have physical parts? -
When we deal with emotion, I don’t know if anyone noticed or not, but impassibility as shown here so far does not solve the “problem” of God being controlled by an external source. There is still the act. Impassibility insofar as emotion is concerned only divorces God’s expressive and relational nature from the act. Romans 1:18-32 is a good example of this. God’s wrath is revealed against the unrighteousness of men. Men rejected God so God gave them over to their lusts. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie. “For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions.”
This is perhaps a more interesting aspect of this topic. Scripture repeatedly presents God as acting in response to external events or persons. The serpent tempts, and is cursed. Man disobeys and is cursed. David sins and loses his son. Ananias deceives and is killed. The Christians ask, and they receive. Scripture is replete with examples of God acting in response to something external to Himself. The question is not whether or not these acts involves relational aspects of God’s nature (emotion) or if God merely reacts to an event. The question really is not whether or not God ‘suffers’ when men do evil (either suffers as Christ on the cross or suffers in terms of grieving, or even loving). The question of impassibility should be whether or not God reacts to men period.
And if the answer turns out to be divine impassibility then that’s fine, but perhaps the best start is commentary and walking through to explain those passages without such reaction (not God being angry, but Romans 1:18-32).
Personally, I do think God has emotion (his nature is “relational”), but that this emotion is expression of his nature. Holding to divine sovereignty I really don’t think God is controlled by events even he acts in response (the events, the fall, all sin, me, you, ….. everything….are all within the domain of this sovereignty and creatorship of God). -
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
God has perfections , but not emotions or passions.
The people thought the Apostles were gods....and to prove they were not, they said they were men of like "passions".
11 And when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men.
12 And they called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul, Mercurius, because he was the chief speaker.
13 Then the priest of Jupiter, which was before their city, brought oxen and garlands unto the gates, and would have done sacrifice with the people.
14 Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,
15 And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein:
16 Who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways.
17 Nevertheless he left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.
18 And with these sayings scarce restrained they the people, that they had not done sacrifice unto them. -
I provided a definition of what I understand as the traditional Reformed position in terms of emotion and impassibility. This is how I understand your position to be, so please correct me if I have misunderstood.
An impassible God is a God who is not affected by anything outside of Himself. Emotions such as love, hate, anger, grief, joy, etc., are anthropomorphic illustrations that we used to deal with God’s actions. God never grieves, rejoices, desires, angers etc. in terms of emotion and a relational context with men because God is complete in Himself (if there is emotion it is within the Godhead, not derived from a relationship with men). Terms like these are meant to describe God’s actions to us in a meaningful way, but they are in reality foreign to God Himself. This is, as Calvin noted, a concession to human understanding. The reason is these terms describe a response to something outside of God, and God is unaffected by external causes.
What I am describing is not my own view, so please, let me know if I am following you or if I am way off track here.
Thanks. -
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
There is a 6 sermon series by a young man named Samuel Renihan where I think you did a really good job of laying out the historic position of the church.
I will try to pick up the links for that they're probably on sermon audio if not I can track down where I have him and he did a good job I like how he stressed that God has perfections not not just holy incommunicable attributes what perfections.
example God is love he doesn't just have love or experience love .
Could a perfect God love us anymore or any less than he already does?
Men are moved by emotions and passions .
we get surprised by something we learn something ,we we neglect to consider something .
that never can happen with God with all His holy in communicable attributes -
-
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
even though we are being restored image bearer's now I don't think we can really get a handle on any of God's attributes in a right way because sin has affected us . -
Studying a bit this morning I ran across this view of Shedd:
“Though it was God the Son, and not God the Father, who became incarnate, and suffered, and died, it by no means follows that the first person of the Trinity made no self-sacrifice in this humiliation and crucifixion of the incarnate second person. He gave up to agony and death, his ‘dear’, and ‘beloved’ son,…No person of the Godhead, even when he works officially, works exclusively of the others. And this does not conflict with the doctrine that the Divine essence is incapable of suffering. The Divine impassibility means that the Divine nature cannot be caused to suffer from an external cause. Nothing in the created universe can make God feel pain or mystery. But it does not follow that God cannot himself do an act which he feels to be a sacrifice of feeling and affection, and in so far as inward suffering. When God gave up to humiliation and death his only begotten Won, he was not utterly indifferent, and unaffected by the act. It was truly a sacrifice for the Father, to surrender the beloved Son, as it was for the Son to surrender himself." (Shedd, Dogmatic Theology). -
https://chantrynotes.wordpress.com/...samuel-renihan-god-without-passions-a-primer/
Icon,
I think that if we were to sit down and discuss our views on this subject we would find that many of our differences are in definitions and terms. We would probably still differ a bit, and certainly our conclusions may cause us to interpret some passages in different ways.
I think that you present a good argument for your position. But I do question one element of your argument (its presence in the argument, not its validity). I've seen it posted by others in such a conversation, that "we get surprised and God does not." I never quite understood why this was included as most here agree (I don't know of any open theists on this forum). Human emotion is not dependent on surprise or a lack of knowledge regarding the event. It's just my opinion, but I think your support would have been better without that defense. -
Others like the "tap dance" as their comfort zone and I don't blame them, as this is my second choice.
HankD -
HankD -
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
I had shared this a few days ago with hank;
http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.a...out+Passions&keyworddesc=God+without+Passions -
I agree that we cannot fully understand God. But IMO if God says that He is eternal and knows everything eternally, then those data should be factored into our opinion on whether God in time begins to experience an emotion because of what do. -
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
to speak of" God in time begins to experience"....I think first off- was there something, anything, God had to learn? To suggest this is an impossibility. A god who needs to learn is NOT the biblical God.
In the incarnation we are told this;
8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
This speaking of Jesus humanity speaks of Him as our High Priest having to go through or actually experience what He did not in the sense of gaining knowledge, but actually functioning as our mediator he can totally identify with us by participation in the realm of time....In His humanity, he wept, he was tired, etc.
14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need. -
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
First of all, I need to confess that to my shame I have never read Calvin's Institutes. However, I don't think this quote squares with what you wrote earlier.
-
1) It was agreed each person of the Trinity experiences suffering and emotional pain. No need to backtrack on a ship that sailed.
2) Many try to throw the baby out with the bath water, scripture indicates God's emotions are sometimes "aroused."
3) God hate for sinners cannot be dismissed. Thus when we choose to sin, we arouse God's hatred.
4) Jesus was slain about 2000 years ago, not before creation. Certainly God formulated His redemption plan, including the death of His Lamb, before creation. But to conflate a plan with an action is error.
5) Acts 15:18 says God made known long ago, things like the Gentiles turning to Jesus. No support whatsoever for the mistaken doctrine of exhaustive determinism.
Page 3 of 5