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.