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.