The Impassibility of God (VII)

In this series we have given several reasons why God is "without body, parts, or passions" as the confessions affirm. We have contended that the idea of God having passions and moods is opposed to the idea that God is self sufficient, independent, and immutable. We have also contended that it is against the idea that God is eternally and infinitely "blessed." The scriptures often style God as the "blessed" one, and "the blessed God." Christ is called, "the Son of the Blessed," (Mark 14: 61, 62) the Creator of all things is said to be, "God blessed for ever," (Romans 1: 25; 2 Corinthians 11: 31; 1 Timothy 1: 11) and Christ, as a divine person, is so called. (Rom. 9: 5) 

In a writing on this subject, titled "Theology: Attributes of God - Blessedness" (here - emphasis mine), the author says (emphasis mine):

"God’s attribute of blessedness is one of his least discussed attributes in churches today."

That is absolutely true and it is one of the reasons why some fail to affirm the impassibility of God. Said the the same author:

"In 1 Timothy 1:11 God is referred to by Paul as “the blessed God.” The term used here is also applied to Christ later in the book (6:15), and its primary connotation is one of being privileged or happy. Quite simply, our God is a happy God. Is that thought or attribute one that often crosses our minds? Often times we think of God as being the very opposite. He is always angry and upset with the world, ready to pour out his judgment at any moment. Or perhaps our image of God is a bit more charitable, looking out for opportunities to bless his people and show his love to them. While both of these perspectives are true in some sense and emphasize others of God’s attributes rightfully, they both fail to account for God’s blessedness. In a very real sense, God takes real and emotional delight in himself and in his creation. God truly is a happy God."

Yes, God is a happy God! However, it is true, as our author says, that we often fail to realize this truth and often see God as rather in a bad mood most of the time. 

Said our author:

"We must first note that God’s blessedness is fully sufficient within himself. As the Triune God, He has always been perfectly blessed and happy to take delight in the other persons within the Trinity. God shows love because God is love, and God is love precisely because he is Triune. It is within the context of this inter-Trinitarian love that God’s blessedness is fully realized and sufficiently satisfied. This means that God does not “need” anything or anyone else in order to be happy or satisfied. With that said however, we can now explore how God’s happiness is extended to us."

Again, I cannot agree more, and I cannot add anything other than a hearty "amen."

In another good article on the blessedness of God, titled "Why Can’t the Impassible God Suffer? Analytic Reflections on Divine Blessedness" by R.T. MULLINS of the University of St Andrews (see here), we find these good words (again all emphasis is mine):

"At this point in the conversation, one will most likely ask again, “Why can’t the impassible God suffer?” It seems to me that there are no clear systematic connections between divine timelessness, immutability, simplicity, aseity, and self-sufficiency that will give us an answer to this question. I believe that one must look elsewhere within classical theism to discover the answer to this question." (pg. 11)

Mullins points out the weakness in the arguments for impassibility as deductions from the idea of God's immutability, aseity, etc., and believes that the strongest argument comes from the attribute of divine blessedness. 

Mullins writes: 

"What must be understood is that classical theism affirms certain principles, assumptions, and divine attributes that other Christian theists will deny. These other assumptions and attributes can explain why the impassible God cannot suffer. Relevant for my purposes here is the classical understanding of God’s emotions. Though 20th Century passibilist theologians have often asserted that the impassible God lacks any emotions, we will soon see that this is false." (pg. 11)

Agreed. We are not arguing that God does not have emotions, but that he does not have passions, that he does not experience emotions exactly as humans, as those who have physical bodies. 

Mullins writes: 

"To get us started in understanding these issues, I shall begin by focusing on the following definition of impassibility from James Arminius. He writes that, 

IMPASSIBILITY is a pre-eminent mode of the Essence of God, according to which it is devoid of all suffering or feeling; not only because nothing can act against this Essence, for it is of infinite Being and devoid of external cause; but likewise because it cannot receive the act of any thing, for it is of simple Entity.— Therefore, Christ has not suffered according to the Essence of his Deity."

Agreed. 

Mullins writes: 

"In order to gain some traction in our understanding of impassibility, it is worth summing up three common impassibility themes that I believe make up the core of the doctrine. First, there is a widespread agreement that the impassible God cannot suffer. The ‘cannot’ here is quite strong. It implies that it is broadly logically, or metaphysically, impossible for God to suffer. Second, underlying this notion is the assumption that God cannot be moved, nor acted upon, by anything ad extra to the divine nature. Again, the ‘cannot’ is quite strong. It implies that it is broadly logically, or metaphysically, impossible for God to be moved, or acted upon, by anything outside of God. Third, there is also a widespread agreement that God lacks passions, but this claim needs to be nuanced since there is disagreement among classical theists about the nature of passions. This disagreement makes it quite difficult to fully articulate the doctrine of impassibility." (pg. 12)

It is as much impossible for God to suffer as it is for him to lie. He cannot suffer and he cannot lie. It is indeed "quite difficult" to "articulate the doctrine of impassibility," and on this we will shortly cite from Dr. Phil Johnson on this very point. This difficulty is because God is still in many ways incomprehensible to us, who transcends us in so many ways. 

Mullins writes: 

"Why is it a problem that there is no agreement on the nature of passions? Without this agreement, it is difficult to understand what is being denied of God in the doctrine of divine impassibility. On the level of grammar, to say that God is impassible is to say that God lacks passions. If we don’t know what a passion is, we do not know what we are denying of God." (pg. 12)

I agree and I have tried to explain why God is without passions and yet is not without emotion. It is like saying that God speaks. Does he speak as creatures, using a mouth and tongue? No, and so his speaking is not the same as our speaking, yet it is still speaking. Confusing? Yes, but still true. God is different from us and his speaking, smelling, walking, etc., cannot be understood except as being anthropomorphic. Perhaps it may seem as though we may be making a distinction without a difference when we speak of passions versus emotions. I hope not. I am simply agreeing with traditional orthodoxy on the point of difference and believe it cannot be improved upon.

Mullins writes: 

"What counts as a passion is a matter of dispute amongst the ancient and medieval Christians. The Christian tradition shows an interesting variety of opinion on what counts as a passion. There are theologians who wish to say that mercy does not count as a passion, so God is merciful. Others, like Thomas Aquinas, hold that mercy is a passion and as such God cannot literally be said to be merciful." (pg. 12)

God is being, but is never said to be "becoming." If he is merciful now, it is because he has always been merciful. God does not feel mercy as we feel mercy, though there is of course similarity as well as difference. Mercy is not a disposition or mood with God, not something produced in God by something outside of God. Mercy in God is a state of mind.

 Mullins writes: 

"There is a further, and related, difficulty with emotions. In contemporary parlance, it is more common to speak of emotions than passions, and a great deal of the modern impassibility debate has revolved around whether or not God has emotions. A problem with this is that there is no agreed upon definition of emotions in the history of philosophy, and that debate continues to this day. Further, there is not a nice, neat, mapping of certain conceptions of emotions onto the differing conceptions of passions, though some promising proposals have been articulated. As such, things in this regard can sometimes be a bit confusing. For example, the 19th Century theologian William Shedd denies that God has any passions, but he holds that God has two emotions: love and wrath. Shedd says that these two emotions are in fact one and the same moral attribute of God—holiness. Shedd is not alone in affirming that God lacks passions, and yet is full of love and wrath. This is a fairly common claim throughout Church history, though not all agree that God literally has wrath." (pg. 13)

I do not believe God has passions or moods, does not have fluctuations of intensity in his emotions but I do believe that he has what is equivalent to our emotions, that he loves, hates, expresses anger, etc. He does not have changing dispositions. God's emotional state cannot be manipulated. 

Mullins writes: 

"How does Shedd get to this conclusion that God lacks passions, yet has the emotions of love and wrath? To answer this question, we need to make impassibility less mysterious and vague. In order to demystify the doctrine of impassibility, I wish to focus on the following question: how does one go about deciding which emotions or passions can truly be literally attributed to an impassible God? I believe that the answer to this question will help us gain a great deal of understanding of the doctrine of divine impassibility. I focus on literal attribution because impassibilists have long held that various emotions predicated of God in scripture can be metaphorically attributed to God. What I am concerned with now is which can be literally attributed to God—i.e. emotions like love and wrath. Answering this question will help one understand why the impassible God cannot suffer." (pg. 13)

In some respects this subject is mysterious, beyond our comprehension. I also agree that the job of the theologian is to "make impassibility less mysterious and vague" and to "demystify the doctrine of impassibility."

I also agree that emotions are predicated of God in scripture but only by analogy. God is not an emotional being as are humans, especially fallen sinful human beings.

Mullins writes: 

"There are several criteria that early and medieval theologians express that eventually become part of what later Christian theologians use to develop a clearer account of impassibility. To start, most impassibilists have some sort of inconsistency criterion. It can be stated as follows: 

Inconsistency Criterion: Any passion or emotion that is inconsistent with the divine nature cannot literally be attributed to God." (13-14)

I agree with that criterion. 

Mullins writes: 

"There is a divine attribute that is often overlooked in contemporary discussions that will help us understand why the impassible God cannot suffer. It is an attribute that has wide affirmation in classical Christian and Hindu theology. This divine attribute is often called God’s blessedness in older theological texts. This is also sometimes referred to as God’s happiness, bliss, or felicity. According to Scrutton, “the early church tended to see apatheia and/or blissfulness as an ideal on a ‘metaphysical’ as well as on a specifically moral level. Because passions were thought to be involuntary and to overcome reason, the experience of passions would disturb God’s existence and bliss.”  (pg. 16)

I agree that the divine attribute of infinite blessedness is often overlooked in discussions on God and passions. 

Mullins writes: 

"What exactly is this attribute of divine blessedness? James Ussher explains it as follows: “It is the property of God, whereby he hath all fullnesse [sic] of delight and contentment in himself.” According to Ussher, all felicity, happiness, endless bliss, and glory arises from God’s perfect nature. So God has no need for anything else because He is perfectly happy in Himself. Ussher goes on to explain that, because God is perfectly happy, nothing outside of God can move His will. With creatures like you and I, we are moved to act by external factors. For example, if I see someone who is in a state of pure misery, I will hopefully be moved by this towards an action that will help alleviate this person’s misery. Yet, according to Ussher, God is not like this. Since God is perfectly happy, He cannot be moved to act by anything outside of Himself. Instead, God can only will to act towards His own glory." (pg. 16)

Very well said is this and I fully agree.

Mullins writes: 

"With this understanding of divine blessedness before us, one might ask how this helps us with articulating the doctrine of divine impassibility. Drawing on the Church tradition, William Shedd offers the following criterion of blessedness to sort out which emotions can be attributed to God: “The criterion for determining which form of feeling is literally, and which is metaphorically attributable to God, is the divine blessedness. God cannot be the subject of any emotion that is intrinsically and necessarily an unhappy one.” Call this the Blessedness Criterion. 

Blessedness Criterion: Any passion or emotion that entails a disruption of God’s happiness cannot literally be attributed to God." (pg. 18)

That is my view and is one of the reasons for denying that God experiences passions as we do as humans with physical bodies.

Mullins writes: 

"In this Blessedness Criterion, one can find an explanation for why the impassible God cannot suffer. God cannot experience any emotion that conflicts with the proper emotional evaluation of Himself—i.e. bliss. According to the impassibilist, it would be irrational, and immoral, for God to have the emotional evaluation of something external to God that would disturb His bliss. For example, Tertullian claims that God is perfect in all of His emotions such as mercy, gentleness, and anger. Yet, God experiences these emotions in such a way that it does not conflict with His perfect happiness." (pg. 18)

Again, well said and is my view.

Mullins writes: 

"Due to space constraints, I must take stock of what we have discussed so far, though I think more needs to be said in order to fully grasp the doctrine of divine impassibility. Given the criteria and assumptions that I have identified, I believe that we can restate the three core impassible themes as follows. 

First, it is metaphysically impossible for God to suffer. 

Second, it is metaphysically impossible for God to be moved, or acted upon, by anything outside of God. 

Third, it is metaphysically impossible for God to have an emotion that is irrational, immoral, or that disrupts His perfect happiness. 

My main question in this paper has been, “Why can the impassible God not suffer?” The answer seems to be that an impassible God has an emotional evaluation of Himself as the supreme good. This emotional evaluation brings God such perfect happiness that nothing could possibly disrupt His happiness. The impassible God’s evaluation of Himself and His creation is such that it is metaphysically impossible for Him to be moved by anything other than Himself. To be sure, there are many lingering questions about this impassible God. One might like to know how such a God could possibly resemble the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jesus, but that conversation must be left to another day. My hope is that with a clearer understanding of impassibility on the table, theologians can be in a better position to offer critiques and defenses of impassibility in future debates." (pg. 18-19)

Again, this is the orthodox view and has sound scriptural support. 

In closing this series let me cite these words from Dr. Phil Johnson, associate of Dr. John MacArthur.

Said Dr. Phil Johnson on the subject (see "God Without Mood Swings" here)

"To be perfectly frank, impassibility is a difficult doctrine, both hard to understand and fraught with hazards for anyone who handles it carelessly. And dangers lurk on both sides of the strait and narrow path. While the radical-Arminian open theists are busily lampooning the doctrine of divine impassibility by claiming it makes God an iceberg, a few hyper-Calvinists at the other end of the spectrum actually seem prepared to agree that God is unfeeling and cold as ice." 

It is worth contemplating as to why (if true, and I think it is) it is the Arminians who tend to deny God's impassibility and the Calvinists who uphold it, and why "hyper-Calvinists" want to go overboard on it. Dealing with the subject of God and emotions is a delicate subject, much like the doctrine of predestination and needs to be handled with care. 

Said Dr. Johnson: 

"We must begin by acknowledging that we are all too prone to think of God in human terms. "You thought that I was just like you," God says in Psalm 50:21. "I will reprove you and state the case in order before your eyes" (NASB). "My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts" (Isaiah 55:8-9). Again and again, Scripture reminds us that the affections of God are ultimately inscrutable (cf. Ephesians 3:19; Romans 11:33)."

Agreed. This needs to be kept in mind.

Said Dr. Johnson: 

"To cite just one example, consider that God's love never wavers and never wanes. That alone makes it utterly unlike any human love we have ever experienced. If we consider how the Bible defines love rather than how we experience the passions associated with it, we can see that human love and divine love both have all the same characteristics, which are spelled out in detail in 1 Corinthians 13. But notice that not one characteristic in the biblical definition of love has anything whatsoever to do with passion. Real love, we discover, is nothing at all like the emotion most people refer to when they mention "love.""

That is true and also needs to be kept in mind.

Said Dr. Johnson: 

"That's why we must let Scripture, not human experience, shape our understanding of God's affections. Those who study the matter biblically will quickly discover that God's Word, not merely classic theism, sets the divine affections on an infinitely higher plane than human passions. We can learn much from the anthropopathic expressions, but to a large degree the divine affections remain hidden in impenetrable, incomprehensible mystery, far above our understanding."

Agreed.

Said another writer (see here):

"Much of what we say about the God who dwells in unapproachable light (1 Tim 6:15-16) is simply affirming what he is not. God has no beginning or end (eternal); God cannot die (immortal); God is not one of many of gods or like any created thing (unicity); God does not depend on anyone or anything for life (aseity); God does not change (immutability), he has no body (immaterial), he has no parts (simplicity) or passions (impassibility), and he has no limits (transcendence) or restrictions (omnipresence). But the doctrine of divine blessedness involves something we can confidently say that God is: God is blessed. Blessedness is essential to who God is."

And,

"Divine blessedness is “the satisfaction of God as he reposes in, rests in, and rejoices in the beauty of his perfect being.” Because God is holy, full of infinite and unchangeable light, life, and love, his happiness is guaranteed. He does not become more or less blessed and cannot be anything but happy. He is self-sufficient and all-sufficient (Acts 17:24-25), absolutely delighting and resting in himself. He is eternally happy because he is who he eternally is (Ex 3:14)."

Amen.

The Impassibility of God (VI)

In "DOES GOD SUFFER?" Thomas Weinandy wrote (here emphasis mine):

"From the dawn of the Patristic period Christian theology has held as axiomatic that God is impassible—that is, He does not undergo emotional changes of state, and so cannot suffer. Toward the end of the nineteenth century a sea change began to occur within Christian theology such that at present many, if not most, Christian theologians hold as axiomatic that God is passible, that He does undergo emotional changes of states, and so can suffer. Historically this change was inaugurated by such Anglican theologians as Andrew M. Fairbairn and Bertrand R. Brasnett. Within contemporary Protestant theology some of the better known theologians who espouse the passibility of God are Karl Barth, Richard Bauckham, James Cone, Paul Fiddes, Robert Jenson, Eberhard Jüngel, Kazoh Kitamori, Jung Young Lee, John Macquarrie, Jürgen Moltmann, Wolfhart Pannenberg, Richard Swinburne, Alan Torrance, Thomas F. Torrance, Keith Ward, and Nicholas Wolterstorff."

I believe it was a serious departure from the orthodox faith for modern theologians to deny God's impassibility and to view him as being passible, or possessing emotions as humans, to be like men in this regard. God does not undergo changes in moods nor can he be more blessed, more happy, than he is. He is ever infinitely blessed. His blessedness does not depend on anything outside of himself.

Said Weinandy:

"Among Catholic theologians, while they may differ as to the exact manner and extent of God’s passibility, one nonetheless finds a strange mix of theological bedfellows. They include, among others, Raniero Cantalamessa, Jean Galot, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Roger Haight, Elizabeth Johnson, Hans Küng, Michael Sarot, and Jon Sobrino. Of course one must add the host of Process Theologians who, following the lead of Albert North Whitehead and Charles Hartshorne, hold, by the very character of their philosophical position, that God is by nature passible and so can suffer. This theological shift has been so overwhelming, so thorough, and has been achieved with such unquestioned assurance that Ronald Goetz has simply, and in a sense rightly, dubbed it the “new orthodoxy.”"

Yes, it is a gigantic "theological shift." Count me a believer in the old orthodoxy on this question. By "process theology" is meant those propositions that deny God's foreknowledge of free will decisions, and with what is called "open theism." It seems a natural alignment for such theologians to accept the heterodox view that says God suffers pain. It is often the affirmation of cults and heretics to claim a new revelation or doctrine, or to be restorers of lost truth. 

Said Weinandy:

"What has brought about such a radical reconception of God? How, in only one hundred years, has the Christian theological tradition of almost two thousand years, so readily and so assuredly, seemingly been overturned? There are basically three factors that have contributed to this change: the prevailing social and cultural milieu, modern interpretation of biblical revelation, and contemporary trends in philosophy."

Yes, to believe that God has an emotional nature that is like that of human beings is indeed "a radical reconception of God"! This view of God makes God "pathetic." It is also the erroneous view of Satan, as we have already suggested, who thinks he can forever keep God from being as happy as can be. It gives hope to all haters of God for they will be glad to know that they can make the Almighty to suffer as men.

In studying this issue further for this series, I found out that the Seventh Day Adventists also deny the impassibility of God. In the article "Does God Feel Our Pain?" (here -An Adventist web page) the author attempts to give the reasons for such a denial, and for believing in a God who can and does suffer. That author begins by saying (emphasis mine):

"In its developmental phase, ancient Christian theology, influenced by pre-Christian Greek philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle, pictured God as an emotionless, self-sufficient being, incapable of mental pain. It was a being who had no interest in, and could not be affected by, anything outside of Himself." 

This author thinks that the Greek philosophers envisioned God as "emotionless" and "incapable of mental pain," but this is not true of all the Greeks. As we have before observed, the pantheon of Greek gods and goddesses were all passible. Further, God is without passions but he is not without emotion, as we have been affirming in accordance with Christian tradition and orthodoxy. Further, the Greeks were not wrong in everything they said about the deity, for Paul quotes them approvingly when he says that one of their poets said that humans are all "God's offspring." (Acts 17) That false Greek philosophy did get mingled in Christian heresies there is no doubt, but not in this area. 

Said the Adventist:

"This view of an impassible God prevailed among Christians until well into the nineteenth century, when a more biblically oriented view began to emerge. One of the distinctive components of the biblical message is the idea that God Himself experiences mental pain and suffering—grief, sorrow, anguish."

I deny that the view of orthodox Christians, the one that prevailed for more than 1800 years, was false, and that the modern view of a pathetic suffering God is "a more biblically oriented view." I deny that "God Himself experiences mental pain and suffering." If that is true, then he is not infinitely blessed all the time and he is not self sufficient and immutable. I deny that God's peace and joy is dependent upon his creatures.

Said the Adventist:

"A number of other thinkers share this conviction, seeing a direct relation between the ability to love and the capacity for mental pain. According to H. P. Owen, many theologians “hold that the absence of suffering in God would be incompatible with his perfect love.”"

For God to love does not require that he be capable of mental pain. Talk about "philosophy" governing bible interpretation! Further, such a proposition must lead us to say that we will never exist in heaven eternally, where we only love, without also knowing pain and suffering.

Said the Adventist:

"As we turn to Scripture, perhaps the most explicit reference to divine pain comes in Genesis 6:6. Contemplating the evil of the antediluvian world, the text says: “The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.” And Isaiah 63:9 states that in all the distresses of His people “[God] too was distressed.”

But, again, we do not take such expressions literally, no more than when human body parts are ascribed to God, or to when God is said to have wings. If God goes from feeling no pain to feeling pain, then he is not immutable, is not ever infinitely blessed, is not independent. 

Said the Adventist:

"Before the question “Why does God suffer?” is answered, it must be pointed out that the cause of the divine suffering lies wholly outside of God. There’s no defect or deficiency in His person that would lead Him to suffer, no component of His “lifestyle” that would cause Him pain."

It is an awful heresy to say "the cause of the divine suffering lies wholly outside of God," for that would deny God's aseity, and make him dependent for who he is on creatures he has made. God forbid the thought. Further, if God's peace and joy can be destroyed, then he indeed shows that he has defect and deficiency!

Said the Adventist:

"Among the external causes of God’s suffering are the following:   

1. The Suffering of Jesus - The Father suffered with His Son—especially during the agony of the Passion Week. In the words of Ellen White: “God suffered with His Son. In the agony of Gethsemane, the death of Calvary, the heart of Infinite Love paid the price of our redemption.”"

Here the Adventist apologist accepts the error of patripassianism, of which we have already spoken. God cannot suffer. For God to suffer, he must become a man, which he did when the Son of God became the Son of Man; And even then it was the humanity that suffered, not the divinity. Further, the words of Ellen White have no authority. In fact, she was a heretic and gave birth to another cult. Yes, God knows pain, but he does not experience pain, just as God knows sin and lust, without himself experiencing sin and lust himself.

Said the Adventist:

"2. The Evil in the World and the Destructive Consequences of Sin for Humanity - God is concerned about the havoc that sin wreaks in the lives of human beings. Surely, no human parents can grieve more deeply at seeing their beloved children destroying themselves through vicious practices than God grieves as He contemplates the destructive consequences of sin to human beings. Said Wade Robinson, “The life of God is a perpetual . . . suffering. . . . His pure mind cannot exist in presence of evil without exquisite pain.” And in the words of Ellen G. White: “Through long ages God has borne the anguish of beholding the work of evil.”

Yes, God is grieved but not as a passion as humans. God is not suffering mental pain. It is to be understood as not meaning exactly what it does when we speak of ourselves being grieved, or as being displeased. It means something is disapproved, is against what he values. It does not denote a passion in God, or that he is lessened in his joy and bliss. If God and glorified saints can suffer, then there is no such thing as a life without suffering. God forbid the thought.  

Said the Adventist:

"3. Our Human Failure to Realize His Ideal for Us - “Divine love sheds tears of anguish,” Ellen White says, “over men formed in the likeness of their Maker who will not accept his love and receive the impress of his divine image.” And again: “Every . . . failure of humanity to reach [God’s] ?. . . ideal brings grief to Him.”

No God does not cry. Yes, Jesus wept, but that is because he was a man. Again, to cry denotes concern and God is concerned, though not as a passion. God does not experience regret as men, though God is said to regret, but it is, as we have contended, a figurative expression to denote that a change has occurred in men, not a change in God. God is never disappointed with himself although he is disappointed in his creation. 

Said the Adventist:

"4. Sympathy With All Human Grief and Pain - We may believe that because “God is love” (1 John 4:16), He feels the anguish, pain, and grief of human beings. He cannot contemplate human suffering as an uninterested, unaffected bystander. He suffers with all of the suffering of the world. He suffers in deepest sympathy with the sufferings of every human being. The pain, grief, and sorrow of every human being become His, as well."

Well, God does not literally suffer, as we have seen. When the scriptures speak of him suffering or being afflicted, we are not to understand this literally, no more than when it is said that God speaks from his mouth, for God is Spirit and has no body. Such language is accommodating and analogous. It means that he has sympathy but not as a passion. After all, as we have stated, God had foreknowledge of all those things that are said to grieve him, so when it is said that he was grieved at a point in time it is not to mean that he experienced a change in his emotional or mental state. 

Said the Adventist:

"5. The Final Destruction of the Impenitent - We have to believe that the destruction of the impenitent in the end will be the occasion for the most intense grief of God. Sometimes I wonder if the grief will perhaps leave Him with an eternal feeling of emptiness for every lost person."

If this is true, then God is not 1) immutable, and 2) ever blessed, ever happy, 3) independent. No, God is not experiencing an "eternal feeling of emptiness." 

Said the Adventist:

"If divine suffering is a consequence of evil in the world, believers in God should do all that they can, in cooperation with Him, to hasten the day when evil and suffering will be eradicated.

If God’s contemplation of the destructive consequences of sin in the lives of human beings is painful to Him, we should do all we can, in cooperation with God, to abstain from sin." 

This comment reveals that the writer does not understand that "evil and suffering" will never be eradicated! As long as there is a hell and people populating its prison, there will always be evil and suffering. Ergo, God will never cease suffering (if we grant that its presence actually makes God to suffer). So, God suffers pain? I am sure that Satan is glad to hear that! It would give him satisfaction in knowing that he can make God unhappy and cause him pain and suffering. 

Said the Adventist:

"A conviction that God suffers because of the evil in the world helps us understand the age-old problem of theodicy—the problem of justifying God as a God of love in the face of the presence of evil and suffering in the world. The concept that God, in fact, does experience mental pain is an important component of any adequate solution to this problem, as theologian Warren McWilliams recognized.10 Believing that God is love, we can reconcile ourselves to the fact of evil and suffering in the world, knowing that He shares in that suffering."

Affirming that the Deity suffers pain "helps us understand the age-old problem of theodicy"? Really? Affirming that God suffers "mental pain" is a solution to the problem of evil? I think not. It not only denies the immutability of God, but his independence and infinite blessedness. 

Said the Adventist:

"That God created morally free beings, beings capable of causing Him acute pain through the misuse of their freedom, constitutes an irrefutable testimony not only to the magnitude of His love for human beings, but also to our value and the importance to Him of our existence." 

If God created the world knowing that he would cause himself eternal and unending pain, makes him a sadist. No, God didn't create the world with the knowledge that it would in part become evil and cause him pain, but because he wanted to glorify and enjoy himself. 

Christian History of America

Recently through Roku TV I watched a movie/documentary that was 2 hours and 49 minutes long and titled "THE TRUE CHRISTIAN HISTORY OF AMERICA" (you can also watch it on Youtube, although I do not know if it is the full version (see here). I wholly recommend this video. It will show you that the principles of our American constitution go back to the Magna Carta and to men like Jan Huss, John Wycliffe, and the Reformers who followed them. When you hear people denying that this country was founded as a Christian nation, this film will give you the evidence that refutes that notion. I have even begun watching it a second time.

Bob Harrington Sermon

When I was a young teenager, staying with my friend Tommy Pendergrass (now pastor of Urbancrest Southern Baptist Church - see here), Tommy played me an album of a sermon by Bob Harrington, Baptist preacher who became known as "The Chaplain of Bourbon Street," and this would have been around 1970. Just recently I listened to a couple sermons by preacher Bob and his sermon titled "How I Know I'm Saved" (here) is worth recommending one to listen to. He was an evangelist and his style of preaching reflected that.

Harrington was also known for his debates/dialogues with famous atheist Madalyn Murray O'hair. You can hear their exchanges on Youtube (see here).

Here (here) is a video from the aged Harrington in 2011 telling some of his life story (part one). 

The Impassibility of God (V)

"And in Lystra a certain man without strength in his feet was sitting, a cripple from his mother’s womb, who had never walked. This man heard Paul speaking. Paul, observing him intently and seeing that he had faith to be healed, said with a loud voice, “Stand up straight on your feet!” And he leaped and walked. Now when the people saw what Paul had done, they raised their voices, saying in the Lycaonian language, “The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men!” And Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the chief speaker. Then the priest of Zeus, whose temple was in front of their city, brought oxen and garlands to the gates, intending to sacrifice with the multitudes. But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard this, they tore their clothes and ran in among the multitude, crying out and saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you ("men of like passions with you" - kjv), and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them, “who in bygone generations allowed all nations to walk in their own ways." (Acts 14: 8-16 nkjv)

When the Westminster Confession says God is “without passions,” it cites Acts 14:11, 15 as its proof for this. With that in mind, let us look at that passage.

In the above story Paul and Barnabas are thought to be the incarnation of the pagan gods Zeus and Hermes because of the healing of the lame man. In attempting to convince the pagans that they were not gods they argued that they were not gods because they were "men with the same nature as you," or as in the kjv, "men of like passions with you." The context is showing that Paul has two premises but only one is stated (being an enthymeme): 1. Overt: men have passions; 2. Not explicitly stated but implied: God does not. 

The words "like passions" or "same nature" is from the Greek word homoiopathēs. Strong says it means "suffering the like with another, of like feelings or affections." It means to experience or suffer the same things. It is also used in James 5: 17 which reads as follows:

"Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months." 

There are, in my mind, however, two problems with this argument. First, Paul and Barnabas are not denying that the Greek gods, Zeus and Hermes, were of similar passions to mortal men, though they would seem to be doing so by this argument (unless, as I believe, they are not affirming that Zeus and Hermes were unlike humans in nature and passions, but that the true deity was so). Second, Jesus was the incarnation of God, and he was of like nature and passions as humans (for he was human, though without sin).  But, it may be said that it was not the divine nature of Christ the Son of God who was of like nature with us, and had like passions with us (sinful passions excepted). 

Said one writer on the text in Acts 14 (see here - emphasis mine):

"Paul and Barnabas explicitly reason there that they themselves are intrinsically unworthy of worship because they are men “of like passions” with the Lystrans and subject to the actions of others upon them. In their thinking, just as Hermes and Zeus are vain objects of worship, so would “the living God” be if he were subject to such passions. In other words, their point is not that the audience have made a mistake worshipping people who are not really Zeus and Hermes; their point is that even if they were Zeus and Hermes they would still be unworthy of praise, because Zeus and Hermes are also homoiopathēs, of like passions, and a God who is thus vulnerable to human passions is not worthy of worship. Greek gods were constantly falling in and out of love, getting angry or spiteful, experiencing ecstatic joy and other, more unworthy emotional outbursts. They would never have been described as impassible (incapable of suffering pain or feeling emotion). So, the doctrine of impassibility is not a Hellenisation of the biblical God but quite the opposite – to claim God was passible would be to import Greek categories into him."

I agree. The gods of the heathen were created by the imagination of men and made in their own image. They are as emotional as humans. 

A Case Study

"In all their affliction He was afflicted, And the Angel of His Presence saved them; In His love and in His pity He redeemed them; And He bore them and carried them All the days of old." (Isa. 63: 9)

This is a text that if we took literally, and without qualification, then we would have to affirm that God is passible, subject to passions and capable of suffering. It says that God "was afflicted." 

John Gill in his commentary on this passage wrote:

"That is, God, who said the above words; not properly speaking; for to be afflicted is not consistent with his nature and perfections, being a spirit, and impassible; nor with his infinite and complete happiness; but this is said after the manner of men, and is expressive of the sympathy of God with his afflicted people, and his tender care of them, and concern for them under affliction, as one friend may have for another..."

The words of God simply mean that he fully knows the sufferings of his people, that he has a certain state of mind towards them in their sufferings. We say that God cares, that he is concerned, for his people, but not in the same way that humans experience empathy or sympathy. It means the same thing as he said to Moses about the sufferings of his people in Egypt.

"And the LORD said, I have surely seen the affliction of my people which are in Egypt, and have heard their cry by reason of their taskmasters; for I know their sorrows." (Exo. 3: 7; and cited in Acts 7: 34)

So, the words "in all their affliction he was afflicted" means that he has "seen the affliction" of the people and he has merciful and kind intentions towards them. It does not mean that he was literally afflicted or experienced suffering. He has empathy and sympathy, though not as a human emotion, and not in a way in which he is shown to be mutable.

John Calvin in his commentary wrote:

"In this sense the Prophet testifies that God, in order to alleviate the distresses and afflictions of his people, himself bore their burdens; not that he can in any way endure anguish, but, by a very customary figure of speech, he assumes and applies to himself human passions." 

Again, that is the way I understand it. We can no more understand that God has human passions than we can understand that God has wings; And yet the Psalmist wrote:

"He will cover you with His pinions, And under His wings you may seek refuge; His faithfulness is a shield and bulwark." (Psa. 91: 4)

God having wings is a metaphor, and is not to be taken literally. So too with God suffering affliction.

PB Historical Falsehoods

Since I began writing against the claims of those who call themselves "Primitive Baptists," I have had to correct the falsehoods that they have made relative to their history and to the history of the Baptists. In this posting I want to correct another error that they have put forth about history. 

When I was a young Hardshell preacher, I heard it said more than once that the Pilgrims and Puritans who first emigrated to America in the 1600s did not come as missionaries but solely to escape persecution. They said this because they are determined to deny that there was any missionary activity among Protestants and Baptists prior to the late 1700s. But, in these claims they are wrong and the following information will demonstrate it. 

Historical Proof #1 - Jamestown

"In 1607, the expedition led by Pastor Robert Hunt arrived in Virginia Beach. When they arrived in Virginia, the expedition dedicated our country to the glory of God. They planted a rough-hewn wooden cross, which they brought from England, in the sand and prayed: 

 

"We do hereby dedicate this Land, and ourselves, to reach the People within these shores with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to raise up Godly generations after us, and with these generations take the Kingdom of God to all the earth. May this Covenant of Dedication remain to all generations, as long as this earth remains, and may this Land, along with England, be Evangelist to the World. May all who see this Cross, remember what we have done here, and may those who come here to inhabit join us in this Covenant and in this most noble work that the Holy Scriptures may be fulfilled." (see here - emphasis mine)

Notice that - "to reach the People within these shores with the Gospel of Jesus Christ"!

Historical Proof #2 - Governor Winthrop

John Winthrop, in "Reasons to be considered for justifying the undertakers of the intended plantation in New England," 1629 (see here), said:

"1. It will be a service to the Church of great consequence to carry the gospel into those parts of the world, to help on the coming of the fullness of the Gentiles, and to raise a bulwark against the kingdom of Antichrist which the Jesuits labor to rear up in those parts."

Historical Proof #3 - Oliver Cromwell

"The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in New England (also known as the New England Company or Company for Propagation of the Gospel in New England and the parts adjacent in America) is a British charitable organization created to promote Christian missionary activity among the Native American peoples of New England and other parts of North America under British control. The Company's current website states that "the New England Company can lay claim to being the oldest missionary society still active in Britain."[1] 

 

It was founded by the Act for the promoting and propagating the Gospel of Jesus Christ in New England, passed by Oliver Cromwell's Parliament on 27 July 1649. That Act set up a Corporation in England, consisting of a President, a Treasurer, and fourteen people to assist them.[2] This Corporation had the power to collect money in England for missionary purposes in New England.[3] This money was received by the Commissioners of the United Colonies of New England and dispersed for missionary purposes. The official name of the Corporation was "The President and Society for the propagation of the Gospel in New England".[3]" (see here)

Any of my Hardshell brothers want to repent? Any want to come here and tell us differently?

On Citations

I do a lot of citing the words of others in my writings. I do this because very little is original with me and I find that oftentimes others have said what I want to say and have said it much better. So, I cite others, although I do often add comments to the citations, a kind of commenting on the comments. I also do it because it saves lots of time, especially now when I can copy and paste from on line works. It often takes longer to put things into my own words for I have to think about what to say, how to say it, what words to use, and involves sometimes proof reading drafts and changing sentences. 

There are some people I know who can rarely cite from another person without giving a caveat, without saying that they do not endorse everything the person being cited believed. I do not do this. It is laborious to say, every time I cite someone, that I do not endorse everything he or she says. I think of a few times in the bible where an apostle cited from the works of others and it was clear the apostle was not endorsing everything that the writer of the citation said or taught. 

The Apostle Paul in writing to Titus used a line of the poet Epimenides, saying "The Cretians are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies." (Titus 1: 12) In another epistle Paul seems to be quoting a line from Menander, saying "Evil communications corrupt good manners." (I Cor. 15:33) Also, when he is arguing with the Athenians upon the Areopagus he calls Aratus as a witness citing from him the words "For we are also his offspring." (Acts 17:28) In none of these instances did the apostle Paul feel a need to say "by quoting these words I do not want to be understood as accepting all that the person said or believed." Nor do I. If I cite, for instance, Thomas Aquinas, I do not need to give such a caveat. Of course I don't agree with all that Aquinas said. I quote Baptists all the time, but that is not to be understood as endorsing all that a particular Baptist believed or wrote. 

I also do not believe in plagiarism. Even when I am citing the sentiments or views of another, without citing verbatim, I believe the writer I am summarizing should be given credit. 

The Impassibility of God (IV)

Since God is impassible, is God insensitive? Does divine impassibility mean that God does not feel our pain? Does it mean he cannot sympathize or feel empathy? These are the types of questions we have been examining in this short series (which is coming to its climax or end). 

In another article on this subject, I found an article titled "The Immutability and Impassibility of God," being an essay by Matthew Barrett (here). He says (all highlighting mine):

"DEFINITION - Immutability means God does not change in any way. Impassibility, a corollary to immutability, means that God does not experience emotional change in any way; he does not suffer."

Agreed. Immutability goes hand in hand with impassibility. 

Said Barrett:

"SUMMARY - Immutability and Impassibility are key, historic attributes the church has confessed, attributes that distinguish the infinite and eternal Creator from the finite and temporal creature. Immutability means God does not change in any way; he is unchanging and for that reason perfect in every way. Impassibility, a corollary to immutability, means God does not experience emotional change in any way, nor does God suffer. To clarify, God does not merely choose to be impassible; he is impassible by nature. Impassibility is intrinsic to his very being. Impassibility does not mean God is apathetic, nor does it undermine divine love. God is maximally alive; he is his attributes in infinite measure. Therefore, impassibility guarantees that God’s love could not be more infinite in its loveliness. Finally, impassibility provides great hope, for only a God who is not vulnerable to suffering in his divinity is capable of rescuing a world drowning in suffering."

Exactly so. But, again, this does not mean that God is callous, indifferent, or heartless. It simply means that God does not experience emotion in the same way as do human beings or as creatures with physical bodies. If God is not passionate, is he dispassionate?

 Said Barrett:

"The church—from the early fathers to the Westminster Confession—has believed that the God of the Bible is a God without passions; that is, he is impassible."

Again, as previously stated, this is the orthodox view and is such because this is the teaching of scripture.

Said Barrett:

"Up until the nineteenth century, the word “passions” was a word only to be applied to the creature, not the Creator. It was a word that had negative connotations, referring to someone or something that was vulnerable to change, subject to the emotional power of others. When our fathers denied passions in God, therefore, they were distinguishing him as the immutable, self-sufficient Creator from the ever-changing, needy creature (much as Paul does in Acts 17)."

In that sermon in Acts 17 Paul affirms that God does not "need" anything, which would include having any emotional needs. God does not have moods, tempers or humors, dispositions, etc. Some teach that God created rational creatures, be they angels or humans, because he was lonely. Again, this is a falsehood. God did not create anything because he had a need to fulfill. 

Said Barrett:

"In this one word, “passions,” we see the difference between the Christian God and the gods of Greek mythology, gods susceptible to emotional fluctuation, overcome by a variation in mood, gods changed or manipulated by the will of another. One minute they are given to lust and the next fly off the handle in a fit of rage. By contrast, the Christian God, says Thomas Weinandy, “does not undergo successive and fluctuating emotional states; nor can the created order alter him in such a way so as to cause him to suffer any modification or loss.” That is what it means for God to be impassible."

In the next posting after the present I will look more at the difference between the pagan gods and goddesses of the ancient world and the God of the bible. The gods of the pagans were emotional beings. The words of Barrett and Weinandy are "spot on."

Said Barrett:

"Passibility, in other words, is contrary to his very essence; he is incapable of being passible. Why, you ask? There are many reasons why, but one important reason is because a passible God is susceptible to change, emotional change. But we know from Scripture that God does not change (Mal 3:6; Jas 1:17); he is immutable. Impassibility, then, is the natural corollary to God’s unchanging nature. It is essential to who God is, not merely what he does."

Barrett says "there are many reasons why" God is impassible, but the one I have focused upon (like others), is the immutability of God. But, there are other reasons, such as God not being needy, and being ever infinitely blessed. It is also because this is how God is pictured in scripture. "God is not man that he should repent."

Said Barrett:

"Apathetic? If God is impassible, does that mean that he is stoic, lifeless, indifferent, apathetic, and incapable of love or compassion? That is, unfortunately, the all-too-common caricature. Actually, impassibility ensures just the opposite: God could not be more alive or more loving than he is eternally."

Agreed, and very well stated. 

Said Barrett:

"Apply this truth to an attribute like love, for example, and it becomes plain why impassibility makes all the difference. If God is impassible, then he does not merely possess love, he is love and he is love in infinite measure. He cannot become more loving than he already is eternally. If he did, then his love would be passible, it would change, perhaps from good to better, which would imply it was not perfect to begin with."

Again, a hearty amen!

Said Barrett:

"In that light, impassibility ensures that God is love in infinite measure. While the love of a passible God is subject to change and improvement, the love of an impassible God changes not in its infinite perfection. Impassibility guarantees that God’s love could not be more infinite in its loveliness. God does not depend on others to activate and fulfill his love; no, he is love in infinite measure, eternally, immutably, and independently from the created order."

Again, that is the orthodox view of the teaching of scripture on this subject. Yes, the bible does use emotional language to refer to God, but they are in the same vein as those bible texts that speak of God as having a mouth, hands, feet, ears, etc. They are anthropomorphisms and anthropopathisms,  the ascribing of human traits to God who is not human, who is Spirit, and who has no physical being. God is not like us in how he fluctuates in his feelings towards his creatures. He does not have moods, and the ascription of them to God, in certain contexts, are not to be taken literally, but are examples of God speaking analogously. 

Said Barrett:

"If God is subject to emotional change, how do we know whether he will stay true to his promises? His gospel promises might change as quickly as his mood swings. And if God is vulnerable to emotional fluctuation, what confidence do we have that his own character will remain constant? His love might not remain steadfast, his mercy may no longer be eternal, and his justice can guarantee no future victory."

That is simply reasoning reductio ad absurdum ("a method of proving the falsity of a premise by showing that its logical consequence is absurd or contradictory"). The truth is, God is in some ways like us, and we like him, in that we are, as human beings, created in the image of God. But, it is also true that God is so much unlike us, he being omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, immutable, without beginning. God is perfect and he has always been perfect. He is ever and always infinitely blessed and happy. The Father and his eternal Son have always been infinitely happy in each other, and in the Holy Spirit. 

In an article titled "Is God an Android?" theologian Dr. Norman L. Geisler (here) said (emphasis mine):

"Persons have mind, will, and feelings. Androids have only mind and will, but no feelings. Open theists and others sometimes object to the classical view of God by claiming that if God is impassible then He cannot experience feelings like love and joy. In short, it makes God into an android, or more properly, a theandroid. However, classical theists, including Thomas Aquinas, do not believe that God is without feeling but only that He has no changing passions (feelings). God is a simple and unchanging Being and, as such, He experiences no changing passions. Hence, in his comments on Ephesians 4:30 (”Grieve not the Holy Spirit…”) Aquinas says, this phrase could be called a “metaphorical expression” because “The Holy Spirit is God in whom there can be no emotion or sorrow” (Commentary On Ephesians, 191). For God cannot be “provoked to wrath” (ibid.)."

Amen!

Would you rather not have emotions? Perhaps you would prefer an existence where you had one kind of emotion and not another? Probably you would want to only experience emotional satisfaction and not want to experience grief, angst, anxiousness, etc. 

Must emotions be controlled? Do you control them or they you? What is the source or cause of emotion at any given moment? Do emotions arise always by a conscious choice? Or spontaneously and without volition? What emotions are connected with a physical body? What emotions can spirits feel?

The Last Convert - Story of a Baptist Hero

  

  There are many unsung heroes of the faith. Many who we will never hear their name, except when we get to Glory. If we look and listen though, God may reveal some of them to us, to show us the way, give us encouragement, and give us an example of what a true Christian should be. Recently, God has brought one such hero to my attention.

   On May 29, 1872, a boy was born Scotland. He was reared by Christian parents who were enthusiastic Baptists. His name was John Harper. When he was 14, he had a born again experience and never recovered from it. How I wish there were more Baptists who have never recovered from it! When he was 18, he began preaching in the streets to any who would listen. Another Baptist preacher, E. A. Carter was impressed by his "trench preaching" as if he were in battle. Carter placed John Harper in ministry in Govan Scotland and he became pastor of Paisley Street Baptist Church at 25 years old. The church grew from 25 members to over 500. The church was later renamed Harper Memorial Baptist Church in his memory.

   In 1903, John married Miss Annie Leckie Bell, and in 1906, they had their first and only child, Annie Jessie Harper. John's wife died a little later and left him a widower. He continued his ministry and was a much sought preacher, even coming to America to preach at the Moody Church in Chicago. Moody Church was so impressed with him, that they invited him back the following year. The year was 1912.

   Maybe you will recall a very famous event from 1912. It would be the year the famous Titanic would sink on her maiden voyage. Titanic would be the ship that John took to come to America, along with his 6 year old daughter and niece. John would never live to make his engagement at Moody Church. He evidently had another, more important engagement, that only God knew.

      On April 14, 1912, the Titanic hit an iceberg and began to sink. John quickly awakened his daughter and niece and put them in life jackets, and ran with them to the upper deck where the lifeboats were. He put the girls in a lifeboat, kissed them and said "I must stay behind, but remember I love you." As the people began to crowd the decks, John preached to them unceasingly, asking everyone "Have you been saved? Have you trusted in the Lord Jesus?" For two hours and forty minutes he preached. Maybe it was the longest sermon in history. He frantically went higher and higher on any place he could stand as the ship sank lower into the water. As the ship's band played "Nearer My God to Thee" John continued to preach, pleading with the people to trust in Jesus and be saved. He came to one man named Steve Crain, and asked him "Sir, are you saved?" The man said "No, I don't want to hear you sir, keep quiet." But John did not keep quiet, and later gave Steve his own life jacket, knowing it would likely cost him his own life. John told him "I won't need this, but you do since you're not ready to meet God. I am going up, not down." After the ship sank, John was clinging to a piece of wood, and the current brought Steve, who was also floating in the water with John's life jacket, around to John, and once again John asked "Sir are you saved yet?" Then Steve said, I am not but I want to be right with God." Then John led Steve to Jesus right before he sank into the cold, murky waters. This would be John's last convert.

    In New York, once they heard about the sinking, there was a large roster put up. As it was revealed who survived and who perished, they placed the names on a list divided into two categories, SAVED and LOST. The Titanic had 3 classes of passengers, First Class with all the benefits, luxury and special treatment, down to Third Class, with the rats and gruel for meals. However, when it came to who was "saved" and who was "lost" no class was listed, only names. Isn't that how it really is? No matter what "class" or privilege you have in life, all that matters in the end is whether you are saved, or lost.

   Steve Crain, along with John's daughter and niece, survived. Steve gave testimonies of how God saved him the rest of his life, and gave thanks to God always for John Harper. John's daughter married a Baptist preacher and missionary and had two children, serving her Lord all the days of her life. She lived until 1986. 

   Oh how I want to be like John Harper! Do I want to be on a doomed ship that is sinking? No, but I am. And so are you my friends. This ship isn't called Titanic, it is called Time, and it is sinking fast. I want to preach to all whether they are willing to listen or not and ask "Sir, are you saved yet? Madame are you saved yet?" I want to give them the life jacket Christ gave to me, and say as the Apostle Paul said, "Silver and gold have I none, but what I have I give to thee."

   I hope that although some may refuse to hear what I preach, that the waves of time will bring them back around to me, that I may ask, "Are you saved yet?"

                                                                                       Ken Mann

The Impassibility of God (III)

Said one writer on the question we are studying, particularly as to the connection between thought and emotion (See here - emphasis mine):

"A relationship between thoughts and emotions is substantial and complex – our thoughts and feelings profoundly influence one another. For example, if you are in a gloomy mood, you may notice that many of your thoughts are sad, negative, and have to do with hopelessness or worthlessness. In this case, your negative mood or emotions trigger certain types of thoughts. Once the negative thinking floods your mind, the negative mood gets even worse. And vice versa, if you have negative thoughts, they will most likely fuel your lousy mood. Moreover, these negative thoughts can provoke anxiety or keep you locked into a depressed mood."

Thoughts and feelings are interconnected, joined together. Where there is one, there is the other. So, how can one change his mood? Would it not be in changing one's thoughts? In the above article titled "Change How You Feel by Changing How You Think," we also find these profitable words:

 

"It is essential to understand the complicated reciprocal relationship between thoughts and emotions to tackle negative thinking patterns that contribute to stress, anxiety, and depression. One of the ways to change your negative emotions is to shift your attention. Choose to focus on more positive thoughts or aspects of a particular situation."  

Likewise, when we talk of God's feelings and emotions, we cannot divorce them from his thoughts. How God experiences emotion and how creatures experience emotion is not the same in every way. In fact, I question whether I can even say that God "experiences" anything. One author writing on the subject at Crossway wrote (see here):

"Does God Have Emotions? Yes, God does have emotions. Unpacking that truth, however, can be tricky. The discussion touches on an important point of theology: God’s impassibility. If you are familiar with that doctrine, you know the theology can get technical and hard to follow pretty quickly. And, complicating matters, theologians don’t all agree." 

Yes, this question can be quite "tricky" to answer. And yes this is where theology can seem to get too technical. I say "seem" because this issue is not unimportant. The same article says:

"The issue isn’t really whether or not God has emotions but what they are like. Does God experience emotions the way we do? Some theologians argue that he does and that this is basic to his ability to empathize with us. Other theologians argue that he does not experience emotions as we do at all. If he did, his emotions would make him as willy-nilly as we are, and we could no longer consider him reliably stable (i.e., immutable)."

Agreed. So, since we agree that God and creatures do not possess emotions in the same way, how are they alike and how are they different becomes our focus. This is the focus we have had in the previous two postings on this subject. 

Again the Crossway article says further, in stating this very thing:

"Does It Really Matter? This can sound a bit abstract and philosophical already, and you might be wondering, does impassibility really matter? It does. It really matters both that God has emotions and that they are different from ours in important ways."

Does it really matter? Yes, it does. If God is fickle, going from one mood to a next, then he is mutable, and I cannot be assured that he will love me the same tomorrow as he does today.

Again the Crossway article says further:

"We want to know that God relates to us emotionally without having the problems that our emotions create for us."

God does "relate" to us, because he made us and knows us better than we know ourselves, and not because he is experiencing the same changes of state as we. So the Psalmist said - "Know that the Lord, He is God; It is He who has made us, and not we ourselves." (Psa. 100: 3) He also said:

"O Lord, You have searched me and known me. 2 You know my sitting down and my rising up; You understand my thought afar off. 3 You comprehend my path and my lying down, And are acquainted with all my ways. 4 For there is not a word on my tongue, But behold, O Lord, You know it altogether." (Psa. 139: 1-4 nkjv)

Again, God knows all this not because he actually experiences change in emotion, or changes in his emotional or mental state, but because he is omniscient. 

Crossway says further:

"Jesus’s flesh and bone are proof that God has established a deep connection to our emotional experience and he wants us to know about it. In fact, he demonstrates his solidarity with us, in particular, through Jesus’s suffering." 

Jesus was a man and he therefore had emotions as we do, excluding sinful passions. But, he was also God and therefore we can say that the divinity of Christ, being in union with his humanity, knew those passions without experiencing them in the same way as he did humanly. Christ grew in wisdom but this is not true of God. (Luke 2: 52) Christ became wearied (worn out), but God does not experience weariness. (John 4: 6) "He never gets weary or tired" said the prophet. (Isa. 40: 28) And yet the same prophet cites the word of God who said "You have wearied Me with your iniquities." (Isa. 43: 24) How are we to reconcile such passages? Only by seeing in the latter case an example where God is speaking as if he were a man, conveying the idea that he will cease being longsuffering or patient with the sins of the people. We may even translate the words of God as saying "I have had enough of your transgressions." What do we mean as humans when we say such a thing? Besides expressing an emotional state? We mean that our behavior toward another person will change. 

The Crossway article says further:

"So in what sense does God have emotions? Traditionally theologians have made a distinction between passions and affections. Historically passions described the more physical aspect of emotions, which, as we explained earlier, means that to some extent our bodies are always shaping our emotions. We don’t want to say that about God, though, because God doesn’t have a body, and God doesn’t get cranky when his blood sugar drops. The church fathers used the term passions to describe what God doesn’t have in order to defend against heresies which taught that the Father suffered on the cross or that God compromised his divine nature in order to accomplish salvation. In this sense, we ought to deny that God has passions. He is impassible, meaning that the creation or his creatures cannot push him around emotionally."

The view that the Father suffered on the cross was called "patripassianism" stemming from Modalism, the idea that the Father is the Son, and the connected idea that God suffered on the cross. I had to quit supporting a local group of Baptist churches because they had embraced both Modalism and patripassianism. 

So, is there a difference between affections, feelings, and passions? We seem to use these words as synonyms but theologians have traditionally made the distinction described in the above citation. When we refer to the passion of Christ, we are talking about his sufferings, physical, mental, and emotional, that he endured as a man with a human body. So we read - "To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs." (Acts 1: 3) The word "passion" is from the Greek word "pascho" and means "to be affected or have been affected, to feel, have a sensible experience, to undergo." (Strong) The KJV translates the Greek word as suffer (39x), be vexed (1x), passion (1x), feel (1x).

Crossway says further:

"DeYoung goes on to capture the core beauty of God’s impassibility by saying that God “is love to the maximum at every moment. He cannot change because he cannot possibly be any more loving, or any more just, or any more good. God cares for us, but it is not a care subject to spasms or fluctuations of intensity.” Thus, while it might appear at first that the doctrine of God’s impassibility will leave us with a cold, distant, and disconnected deity, instead the exact opposite is true..."

Amen. Very well encapsulated. 

Crossway says further:

"In other words, God doesn’t have passions in that he is not jerked around by creation. God doesn’t have “good” days and “bad” days. The early fathers were not arguing that God is dispassionate but rather speaking in a philosophically credible way about how God is different from creatures. But these impassibility formulations should not compel us to say that God is in no way like us emotionally."

Again, this is the orthodox position and I think this is the way we are to think about the subject. 

The Got Questions article continues:

"The doctrine of the passibility of God has to do with the theology of the “suffering” of God. Does God suffer? Can He truly feel emotional pain? Some theologians see the impassibility of God as one of His attributes, right up there with His immutability, omniscience, or eternality. They see God as “apathetic” in the sense that He exists above human emotion and remains untouched by it. Others see God’s passibility as one of His essential attributes—they insist that God does indeed suffer with us."

Can God be sympathetic? Have empathy? Yes, but not in exactly the same way as we. When we say that God is sympathetic, we are simply saying that he understands and knows what we are experiencing, and not that he actually experiences a change in mood or emotional state. Thus, in one sense we can "hurt" God's feelings, and in another sense we cannot. 

The article continues:

"God does not have moods, nor "mood swings." He does not have changing emotional states. He does not suffer, experience pain, or experience changes in the degree of his happiness. God's happiness, his blessedness, is not affected by anything outside of himself. God cannot be manipulated. One cannot "play on his emotions," so to speak." 

As I pointed out in a preceding post, Satan does not agree with this. He believes he can cause God true grief and make his life unhappy. He believes he can irritate God. But, he is wrong. 

The article continues:

"The passions, emotions, and feelings that are ascribed to God in scripture have both a similarity and a difference to human passions."

Exactly, as I have been also affirming in this short series. God is not pictured as a Stoic nor as an overly emotional being. The bible does use anthropomorphisms and anthropopathisms. 

In "The Impassible God Who “Cried” Amos Winarto wrote the following under the heading "Addressing the Problem" (here): 

"Perhaps no traditional Christian doctrine has been subject to greater contempt from modern theologians than the assertion that God is “impassible” by nature. Such a doctrine sounds to many people today as if God does not care about human life."

Thus, this series is the way orthodox believers answer these modern theologians who insist, like Satan, that God can be disturbed, agitated, and lessened in his blessedness (happiness). This is why it is important to know the "sense" of scripture. (See Neh. 8: 8)

Winarto says further:

"Early fathers understood that divine impassibility is closely related to divine immutability. The reason is, as Paul Helm has explained, that “God cannot change or be changed, and a fortiori God cannot be changed by being affected. So that impassibility is a kind of immutability.”

Exactly. Since God is immutable, and ever infinitely blessed, he cannot suffer changes in his mental or emotional state as do humans.

Winarto says further:

"While the Bible attributes to God hands, eyes, and feet, what they depict about God is far different from what they refer to human beings. Similarly, while we can speak of God’s sensations and emotion, they too designate something radically different of God from what they designate of humankind."

Correct. It is well that we keep these things in mind as we read of such anthropomorphisms in the bible.

Winarto says further:

"In other words, for Tertullian divine impassibility does not mean that God is without emotion, rather it means that God possesses emotions in a divine manner."

That is the question to decide. How does God possess emotions "in a divine manner"? How is that manner unlike that of his creatures? Is it not in the way we have been arguing? 

In the next couple postings we will look at how the God of the bible is different from the pagan gods and goddesses as respect passions, and at some scripture that bears upon this point. How does God experience pleasure? 

Attitude Towards Difficulties

"Trials will either make you turn away from God, or they will drive you toward Him." 

Wisdom For Each Day by Billy Graham

Let us pray that God uses our trials and adversities to mold us into his image, that they be means for building our character, rather than destroying us. 

The Impassibility of God (II)

In the Internet article "Does God Experience Emotional Change? Immutability and Impassibility" Samuel Renihan, author of the above book, wrote (here - emphasis mine):

"You may have seen a popular commercial advertising the Snickers candy bar in which grumpy persons are pacified by eating chocolate, nuts, and caramel. The premise of this scene is summed up in the words “You’re not you when you’re hungry.” We can, of course, resonate with this statement. Some people even talk about being “hangry.” They are angry because they are hungry. We have natural appetites (inclinations and disinclinations), and our moods change as our appetites are satisfied or dissatisfied. There truly are times when the difference between being content and irritable depends on a Snickers bar (or double stuf Oreos)."

Is God like this in regard to his emotions? Does he have "mood swings"? Does he get irritated? Can he be "pestered" by pests? Does he experience angst and anxiety? When he is said to be grieved, is this literally so? Does God suffer? Does he experience emotional pain? If so, how can he be the unchangeable and ever blessed God?

Said Renihan:

"We know what we are like, but is God like this? Does God experience emotional change? If we answer this question based on popular Christian music, and even popular Christian literature, we would reply that God does experience emotional change. But the Christian creeds, the Christian tradition of theology proper (the doctrine of God), and the Protestant and Reformed confessions of faith disagree."

Count me orthodox on this point. God sympathizes with us, but this does not mean that he experiences any changes in himself, but simply that he well knows what we are going through and he cares. 

Said Renihan:

"What do the Scriptures teach about emotions and God, and how can we formulate a responsible and faithful answer? We will consider four points, focusing on how God describes himself in the Scriptures, and how God teaches us to interpret his own language regarding himself."

The scriptures are the place to find out about God. We cannot rely upon any other thing. "To the law and to the testimony. If they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." (Isa. 8: 20)

Said Renihan:

"1. The Bible describes God in the language of human experience and emotion, but denies that those very experiences are in God. In 1 Samuel 15:11, God declares, “I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following me and has not performed my commandments.” Later in 1 Samuel 15:29, the same passage, this statement is qualified and controlled. “And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for he is not a man, that he should have regret.” Other passages, like Numbers 23:19-20, reinforce the truth that the difference between God and creatures controls the way we read creaturely language about God. It says, “God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?”

God does not have regret because he is not a creature. That is what scripture affirms. However, it seems to contradict itself when it also says God did regret. Again, in the latter case we must say that the latter is "creaturely language," or a metaphor, used to tell us that something is against the will and mind of God, something that does not have his approval. God does not regret in the same way that creatures regret, but only analogously.

Said Renihan:

"2. The Bible describes God in a way that makes it impossible for him to undergo anything or be acted upon."

James says of God the Father - "with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning." (James 1: 17 nkjv) There is no fluctuation in God's emotions or emotional or psychological states; Or only seemingly or as it seems to us as creatures. God seems to change but does not actually change. Is he angry at your sin? Well, he foreknew your sin and has always known this about you. 

Said Renihan:

"Take Genesis 1:1 into consideration. There is a Creator, and there is creation. God did not create something greater or more powerful than himself, nor did he confine himself within the time and space of his creation. God is eternal and a se, of himself, and all things are “from him and through him and to him” (Rom. 11:36). Consequently, God is always the agent, never the patient. God is always fulfilling his purposes and never changing his mind, as stated in Numbers 23:19-20, above."

Here Renihan refers to what is called "the aseity of God." 

Aseity (from Latin ā "from" and sē "self", plus -ity) is the property by which a being exists of and from itself. It means that God does not depend on any cause other than himself for his existence, realization, or end, and has within himself his own reason of existence.

Said Renihan:

"Similarly, several of the names of God, especially “I AM THAT I AM,” are self-revelation using the word “to be.” God is that he is. He is perfect absolute independent being, the source of all that exists, the Creator of all things. Nothing can add to God who is I AM. Nothing can subtract from God who is I AM. Neither can God make himself more perfect or reduce his perfection."

We cannot ascribe passions to God without undermining his immutability, blessedness, and other of his attributes.

Said Renihan:

"God himself declares his perfect unchanging nature to his people in Malachi 3:6, “For I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed.” And we are told the same in James 1:17, “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.”"

Yes, God has a "perfect unchanging nature," which would not be the case were God not impassible.

Said Renihan:

"The truth that the Bible describes God in the language of human experience and emotion, yet denies that those experiences are in God, combined with the Scriptures’ description of the perfection of the being of God, provides a firm and certain conclusion."

Agreed. That is what the Bible teaches and is the orthodox belief of bible believers.

Said Renihan:

"3. We must not equate the human language used to describe God with God himself."

Agreed. We must see such language as a means of "accommodation." God is indescribable, so how can we describe him? Language is insufficient, yet for the time being it is all we have. So God speaks to us about himself in human language, in anthropomorphisms and anthropopathisms, in use of metaphors, similes, figures, and analogous language. The bible speaks about divine things that are "inexpressible." (See for instance II Cor. 12: 4; I Peter 1: 8) Said Dr. Henry Morris (here):

"There are three things called "unspeakable" in the New Testament, with each one translated from a different Greek word. However, they all convey the notion of something which is so marvelous that it simply could not be put into words. II Corinthians 12:4 mentions "unspeakable words," I Peter 1:8 refers to "joy unspeakable" and II Corinthians 9:15 speaks of an "unspeakable gift.""

Said Renihan:

"We can no more contain God in our language than you can contain the ocean in a thimble. The finite cannot contain the infinite. Thus, our minds and language can never wrap themselves around God and fully express him. But although we cannot know God fully, we can know him truly. God’s self-revelation may be suited to our creaturely capacities, but it is not false or empty." 

Thus, as we have been contending, bodily parts and emotions are ascribed to God by way of accommodation. 

Said Renihan:

"For example, when Scripture speaks of God repenting, regretting, or relenting, the point of connection is not between the emotional state of a human that repents and some emotional state in God, but in the action taken. When someone repents, they stop doing what they were doing, and they begin to do something else. So also, God created man, then he destroyed man; God made Saul king, then he removed him; God threatened judgment on Nineveh, then he removed the sentence of judgment."

Exactly. Well stated. 

Said Renihan:

"But God is eternal and has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass, accomplishing all his holy will. So, God’s repentance is not an undergoing or a happening to God, but from the creature’s perspective in time it is a reversal of actions, all of which was decreed by God in eternity. God decreed from all eternity both to create man, and to destroy him, to make Saul king, and then to remove him, to threaten Nineveh, and then to deliver it. We see it all play out in time. The sequence of God’s actions in time leads to a fourth point."

Again, this is what I understand the bible to teach. It is the orthodox position, of both Catholics and Protestants. 

Said Renihan:

"4. We need to distinguish between our eternal God in himself, and the outworking of his decree in time and space."

This is so true and bible students need to understand this important fact as they seek to interpret those texts which ascribe bodily parts and passions to God.

Said Renihan:

"God is angry in the sense that he will cause justice and vengeance to be poured out on the unrepentant and wicked. His anger is therefore an eternal perfection, not an emotion as it is in us."

Could not have said it better myself (as they say)!

Said Renihan:

"And though the Scriptures describe God in creaturely language, and though we experience God’s perfections of love, mercy, and justice in temporal sequences, we cannot conclude from our creaturely perspective that God is emotional. Rather, as the Scriptures have taught us, what we call emotions are unchanging essential perfections in God."

God does not weep nor cry. He does not feel pain nor does he suffer (although he identifies with us in our pain and suffering). In the next posting we will continue our look at this most important subject.