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?
No comments:
Post a Comment