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.
No comments:
Post a Comment