Doctrine of Divine Impassibility?

[Ian Gentles]

Simply summed up, God is without body parts or passions.

"We are men of like passions as you" the apostle writes "We are not God we are pssionate creatures as you are"

I'm more interested in God being without "Passions".

Without passions in that He dosent undergo change....lacks passionate potency. He dosent act on Himself to change in any way. Act timeless etternal will.

God dosent change from imotive stage A to B? In God is no emotional change.

Of course in Jesus we see passions, but Jesus was God come in the flesh.."flesh" hence His passions?

God dosent change as He dosent need to change.

I have tried to explain this as best as my, tiny, mind can.

Greater minds can add to this. What are your thoughts? Off course this would seem to directly oppose "Open Theism".

[Todd Erickson]

I think that the important question here is, how much of this is actually what Paul was saying, and how much of this is actually the Greek philosophy of those times that we have come to read this through?

It's very difficult to read the OT and come away arguing that God is not passionate.

It's far easier to argue that God is Teliologically unchanging than Platonically unchanging.

[Dennis Bratcher]

Simply summed up, God is without body parts or passions.

"We are men of like passions as you" the apostle writes "We are not God we are pssionate creatures as you are"

I'm more interested in God being without "Passions".

Without passions in that He dosent undergo change....lacks passionate potency. He dosent act on Himself to change in any way. Act timeless etternal will.

God dosent change from imotive stage A to B? In God is no emotional change.

Of course in Jesus we see passions, but Jesus was God come in the flesh.."flesh" hence His passions?

God dosent change as He dosent need to change.

I have tried to explain this as best as my, tiny, mind can.

Greater minds can add to this. What are your thoughts? Off course this would seem to directly oppose "Open Theism".

If you are referring to the KJV of Acts 14:15, the passage is not about the immutability of God.

14:15 "Friends, why are you doing this? We are mortals just like you, and we bring you good news, that you should turn from these worthless things to the living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them.

This was Paul's response to the crowd and leaders of Lystra who were proclaiming Paul and Barnabus as incarnations of Hermes and Zeus after a healing, and wanted to offer sacrifices to them.

14:11 When the crowds saw what Paul had done, they shouted in the Lycaonian language, "The gods have come down to us in human form!"

Paul's response was a strong denial that they were gods but that they were there to bear witness to the creator God. In the Greek of that verse there is no word "passions." The Greek phrase is "we are men like you." In context, that is in contrast to being Hermes and Zeus.

As far as God being immutable and impassible, those are both defined a priori by the categories of Greek philosophy in which they were originally cast. They are not ideas presented by Scripture, since it repeatedly describes God as both changing and feeling. While some would argue that those characteristics are only anthropomorphisms (attributing to God human characteristics), they are no more so than trying to define God in terms of logically derived Greek philosophical categories.

The reality is that we have no way to know what God is not (not changeable, not passionate), yet we do have biblical witness to him interacting with humanity both in terms of change and in terms of care and love for humanity. The simple idea of relationship suggests both interaction and the possibility of both pain (rejection) and pleasure (love). While those cannot be defined in terms of human physical or physiological emotion, neither can they be ruled out by logically defining God in such a way that excludes them.

I'd go with the biblical witness to God, and leave some ambiguity, rather than accepting tightly defined logically constructed categories developed from the assumptions of Neoplatonisn through Augustine. I would suggest that the latter is an example of defining God in terms of what we think God ought to be to be God. That ends up with a much smaller God than we realize since it fits within our human understanding.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Ian Gentles]

I think that the important question here is, how much of this is actually what Paul was saying, and how much of this is actually the Greek philosophy of those times that we have come to read this through?

It's very difficult to read the OT and come away arguing that God is not passionate.

It's far easier to argue that God is Teliologically unchanging than Platonically unchanging.

Either God is unchanging or He is not? If so in which ways is He changing? My mined boggles. I agree about Hellinistic influence.

[Ian Gentles]

If you are referring to the KJV of Acts 14:15, the passage is not about the immutability of God.

14:15 "Friends, why are you doing this? We are mortals just like you, and we bring you good news, that you should turn from these worthless things to the living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them.

This was Paul's response to the crowd and leaders of Lystra who were proclaiming Paul and Barnabus as incarnations of Hermes and Zeus after a healing, and wanted to offer sacrifices to them.

14:11 When the crowds saw what Paul had done, they shouted in the Lycaonian language, "The gods have come down to us in human form!"

Paul's response was a strong denial that they were gods but that they were there to bear witness to the creator God. In the Greek of that verse there is no word "passions." The Greek phrase is "we are men like you." In context, that is in contrast to being Hermes and Zeus.

As far as God being immutable and impassible, those are both defined a priori by the categories of Greek philosophy in which they were originally cast. They are not ideas presented by Scripture, since it repeatedly describes God as both changing and feeling. While some would argue that those characteristics are only anthropomorphisms (attributing to God human characteristics), they are no more so than trying to define God in terms of logically derived Greek philosophical categories.

The reality is that we have no way to know what God is not (not changeable, not passionate), yet we do have biblical witness to him interacting with humanity both in terms of change and in terms of care and love for humanity. The simple idea of relationship suggests both interaction and the possibility of both pain (rejection) and pleasure (love). While those cannot be defined in terms of human physical or physiological emotion, neither can they be ruled out by logically defining God in such a way that excludes them.

I'd go with the biblical witness to God, and leave some ambiguity, rather than accepting tightly defined logically constructed categories developed from the assumptions of Neoplatonisn through Augustine. I would suggest that the latter is an example of defining God in terms of what we think God ought to be to be God. That ends up with a much smaller God than we realize since it fits within our human understanding.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

This is why I asked this question, a God without passion sounds rather sterile? How commen is the Doctrine of Divine Impassibility?

[Ian Gentles]

Thinking again, yea I do "think" at times. Isnt this doctrine saying God is already complete? That say, Being "Love" He dosent need to add to this? That nothing in creation, us, pushes back change in Him?
Though must confess, in prayer, I do seek to change Him, in a way, I expect we all do?

[Randy Wise]

Thinking again, yea I do "think" at times. Isnt this doctrine saying God is already complete? That say, Being "Love" He dosent need to add to this? That nothing in creation, us, pushes back change in Him?
Though must confess, in prayer, I do seek to change Him, in a way, I expect we all do?

I think we would state Gods character doesn't change. God is a living being. I don't know what you mean by we seek to change Him. We seek to be like Him as Jesus taught us.

Randy

[Ian Gentles]

I think we would state Gods character doesn't change. God is a living being. I don't know what you mean by we seek to change Him. We seek to be like Him as Jesus taught us.

Randy

What I meant was, we seek to have God give us our petitions. Maybe someone we love is terminaly ill, and this may seem to be God's will in reguards to them. Yet against the odds, what seems to be God's will, we may yet pray for their healing. I hope this explains my thinking?

[Randy Wise]

What I meant was, we seek to have God give us our petitions. Maybe someone we love is terminaly ill, and this may seem to be God's will in reguards to them. Yet against the odds, what seems to be God's will, we may yet pray for their healing. I hope this explains my thinking?

Well Ok. I think flesh and blood is mortal and therefore is subject to accidents, illness and in the end what the world calls death. Jesus had a different teaching for those that followed Him so no healing to us is to be with the Lord. It can be tough for those left behind but God does give us comfort. It good to pray though. Jesus prayed all night once.

Randy

[Todd Erickson]

Either God is unchanging or He is not? If so in which ways is He changing? My mined boggles. I agree about Hellinistic influence.

If God is Platonic, he can't change at all, or he wouldn't be perfect.

If God is Aristotelian, then he's perfect at being God, but this has no effect on his state or response.

[David Graham]

I think we would state Gods character doesn't change. God is a living being. I don't know what you mean by we seek to change Him. We seek to be like Him as Jesus taught us.

Randy

When you consider how big the realm of creation is (perhaps MANY different universes) and that God made them all, he is well beyond our understanding. He is beyond a living being to the very essence of life and personality God's-self.
On one hand God is consistent, stable and predictable, and hence creation assumes these patterns also. And so in God's relationship with his creation he is "immutable", and yet he is perfectly free to change his mind at any time and do what he pleases according to his holy will. This is just another one of those "divine ironies" where aspects of the divine nature are held in some sort of harmonious tension against each other.

Thus we can confidently affirm that God is "immutable", and we can rely on him and depend upon his consistency, and yet we can also affirm that God is soveriegn and free, and thus we can have confidence that if necessary God can "break the rules" at times to save us. IMHO We live in the "messy middle" in our understanding of God, one "clear cut" understanding of God will not always be sufficient to explain him or his ways.

[Randy Wise]

When you consider how big the realm of creation is (perhaps MANY different universes) and that God made them all, he is well beyond our understanding. He is beyond a living being to the very essence of life and personality God's-self.
On one hand God is consistent, stable and predictable, and hence creation assumes these patterns also. And so in God's relationship with his creation he is "immutable", and yet he is perfectly free to change his mind at any time and do what he pleases according to his holy will. This is just another one of those "divine ironies" where aspects of the divine nature are held in some sort of harmonious tension against each other.

Thus we can confidently affirm that God is "immutable", and we can rely on him and depend upon his consistency, and yet we can also affirm that God is soveriegn and free, and thus we can have confidence that if necessary God can "break the rules" at times to save us. IMHO We live in the "messy middle" in our understanding of God, one "clear cut" understanding of God will not always be sufficient to explain him or his ways.

God is Love. 1John So when one seeks to change Him as if He has error or lack of caring (Love) then that to me is folly.

God works for the good of those that Love Him.

I don't believe God wills people to get cancer and we see christians that get cancer and die even children. I conclude the condition is caused by having mortal bodies. I have faith that God spoke the first human from the dust. So He can heal at His will but even such healing is temporary as we all (our bodies) die. Jesus understands suffering in a body like ours including spending 6 hours of intense pain on a cross. God does give us grace and comfort in our distresses and who knows He may add some years to those who are gravely ill and they get well. (hezekiah) Its good to pray to a loving God.

Randy

[Ian Gentles]

When you consider how big the realm of creation is (perhaps MANY different universes) and that God made them all, he is well beyond our understanding. He is beyond a living being to the very essence of life and personality God's-self.
On one hand God is consistent, stable and predictable, and hence creation assumes these patterns also. And so in God's relationship with his creation he is "immutable", and yet he is perfectly free to change his mind at any time and do what he pleases according to his holy will. This is just another one of those "divine ironies" where aspects of the divine nature are held in some sort of harmonious tension against each other.

Thus we can confidently affirm that God is "immutable", and we can rely on him and depend upon his consistency, and yet we can also affirm that God is soveriegn and free, and thus we can have confidence that if necessary God can "break the rules" at times to save us. IMHO We live in the "messy middle" in our understanding of God, one "clear cut" understanding of God will not always be sufficient to explain him or his ways.

I agree God is beyond our,limited, understanding. Yet God does allow us to use our intillect to seek to understand Him more. I'm confussed, a confession, as to why, or if, God would need, or desire, to change in any way, in His being, or actions, or thoughts. Is it our perceptions that He changes, e.g. in actions, or does He in fact change?

[Paul DeBaufer]

I agree God is beyond our,limited, understanding. Yet God does allow us to use our intillect to seek to understand Him more. I'm confussed, a confession, as to why, or if, God would need, or desire, to change in any way, in His being, or actions, or thoughts. Is it our perceptions that He changes, e.g. in actions, or does He in fact change?

I think I think that in any relationship both parties change as a result of being in that relationship, even if only in respect to the relationship itself. We who have multiple children do not treat each exactly the same due to their different personalities and traits and each child changes us just a little in regard to that child. I think God works in relationship very much the same.

[Ian Gentles]

I think I think that in any relationship both parties change as a result of being in that relationship, even if only in respect to the relationship itself. We who have multiple children do not treat each exactly the same due to their different personalities and traits and each child changes us just a little in regard to that child. I think God works in relationship very much the same.

I agree that relationships change, and the people in them. We all change, I'm not the person I was as a young christian etc. It might seem that God changes in relationship with us, but does He actualy change? Does God ever need to change?, desire to change? Can God, in His perfection, change in any way?

[Hans Deventer]

Can God, in His perfection, change in any way?

That's an old one, Ian. As if any change from perfection would logically be a change for bad.

I think there is change in God. He can change his mind, for instance. And experiences affect Him. I would say the crucifixtion being a strong point in case, where God even experiences death as a human.

[Randy Wise]

I agree that relationships change, and the people in them. We all change, I'm not the person I was as a young christian etc. It might seem that God changes in relationship with us, but does He actualy change? Does God ever need to change?, desire to change? Can God, in His perfection, change in any way?

God alone is good. That won't change. But God changed the terms and conditions of a covenant with man because He found the fault in people not the law. So in that sense God looks out for the good of those willing to listen. You state you changed with age. (seasoning?) How old do you think God was before man was? (The creation) We can't see a beginning for the Father in scripture. He was and is. As for myself I conceptualize that somehow the Father formed Himself and with His vast mind taught Himself over a vast period of time. Still in His very Spirit is life and joy and love in itself. I once though how does God not get bored. But have you ever been filled with joy? I have and thought God has even joy in Himself.



“You are my witnesses,” declares the LORD, “and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.


Randy

[Ian Gentles]

That's an old one, Ian. As if any change from perfection would logically be a change for bad.

I think there is change in God. He can change his mind, for instance. And experiences affect Him. I would say the crucifixtion being a strong point in case, where God even experiences death as a human.

Yes, I suppose God hadnt experianced death till then, Mmmm very interesting observation. But surely He Himself is without change? My mind is rather boggling here.

[Paul DeBaufer]

It would be my suggestion that it is God's nature that remains the same.

[Benjamin Burch]

If anyone is interested, here is a paper I wrote for my Early Christian Theology course, on the early development of the doctrine of impassibility. Some might find it helpful.

[David Graham]

God is Love. 1John So when one seeks to change Him as if He has error or lack of caring (Love) then that to me is folly.

God works for the good of those that Love Him.

I don't believe God wills people to get cancer and we see christians that get cancer and die even children. I conclude the condition is caused by having mortal bodies. I have faith that God spoke the first human from the dust. So He can heal at His will but even such healing is temporary as we all (our bodies) die. Jesus understands suffering in a body like ours including spending 6 hours of intense pain on a cross. God does give us grace and comfort in our distresses and who knows He may add some years to those who are gravely ill and they get well. (hezekiah) Its good to pray to a loving God.

Randy

Randy, I'm a little puzzled as to what part of my post you were responding, since I find nothing in what you wrote that I don't agree with.
Your quote "God is love" from 1 John doesn't fully enable us to understand God because of the "statements" immense ramifications.
i.e. God is love therefore..... he sent his only Son to be our Saviour; and yet the same loving God intervenes selectively in differing ways to help some but not others. Some of those who are helped might say: "Oh I didn't expect this..... I've been so wicked" and thus be convinced that God is free to change his mind. Others on the other hand may pray and receive what they ask, and so say that God is consistent and predictable (immutable); likewise the opposite may occur with alternative perceptions expressed.
Yet....... God is still LOVE!

As for God always working for the good of those who love him as expressed by Paul in Romans 8:28, sure, I accept this by faith; yet experience tells us that during life we may not always perceive this to be so, and in fact the "good" may not at all be experienced in this life in this world.

I agree God is beyond our,limited, understanding. Yet God does allow us to use our intillect to seek to understand Him more. I'm confussed, a confession, as to why, or if, God would need, or desire, to change in any way, in His being, or actions, or thoughts. Is it our perceptions that He changes, e.g. in actions, or does He in fact change?

Ian, often God change our perceptions and actions. I know that he has done so with me. Theologically I have been moderately right and left of centre at various stages of my journey with God; sometimes both at the same time with regard to different issues. And yet, I would expect that there is but one body of truth. So does God change the nature of truth, and I move in response to his "changes"? I expect not; but in my search for truth I perceive it in various ways, and therefore change my mind at different times in line with additional knowledge (both objective and subjective) and my life's experiences..... albeit slowly.

However, God does sometimes change the "rules", but such a change is never "secretive" and only available to the "few" who are more enlightened. e.g. When Jesus came, the nature of the covenant between God and his people changed between "keeping the law" and "Keeping the faith". i.e. The old institutional sacrificial system and the new communal "Spirit life" system that we now have.

[David Graham]

If anyone is interested, here is a paper I wrote for my Early Christian Theology course, on the early development of the doctrine of impassibility. Some might find it helpful.

Thanks for sharing that paper with us Ben, the thoughts of the church fathers should guide us in our understanding of the matter..... especially in the definition of "impassibility and the possible parameters of our range of thoughts on the subject. This is also pertinant in our deliberations for our "post Christendom pluralistic" age now in which we live, which has many similarites to their age.

[Dennis Bratcher]

It would be my suggestion that it is God's nature that remains the same.

While I would tend to agree, I'm not so sure it says as much as we might hope. Perhaps the problem is not the definition but the category within which it still attempts to provide definition, that of immutability.

Is it possible that God's nature is such that he genuinely interacts with humanity, responds to human decision, and changes his course of action based on human response? In other words, God's very nature is dynamic and cannot adequately be described by the human construct of immutability without further defining and carefully parsing the term. I would suggest that all such absolute definitions of God need such parsing, which makes them far less absolute, and less helpful, than they appear.

Of course, the need is to place God beyond the realm of caprice that characterized ancient deity and to ground the idea of God in some form of constancy (which is what passages like Deut. 7:9, Mal 3:6, Psa 117:2ff express). I'm just not so sure that doing that within the confines of classical notions of un-changeability or immutability is adequate.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Dennis M. Scott]

If anyone is interested, here is a paper I wrote for my Early Christian Theology course, on the early development of the doctrine of impassibility. Some might find it helpful.

Thanks for your paper. The groups I currently teach range in age from nineteen to sixty-five. They are "old country" (European) catholics, and postmodern pragmatists. None of them chose these introductory religion courses, and some take them with violent objection. Some assume atheism, but mainly due to the absence of any religious background. It is especially rewarding to observe them experience and recognize the Presence of God for the first time. Just for fun, I will begin to ask if they have ever heard of the doctrine of impassibility.

I am most amazed in these classes by the receptivity to the Gospel. I haven't see this level of hunger since working among Southeast Asian refugees thirty years ago. Tonight I begin a class in an inner city area of Boston. Tomorrow we start a new class in what is geographically a suburban community, but characterized by English language learners and the poor. Over simplified, these are blue collar workers being forced (by state legislation) to transition to white collar roles and education level. Interesting parallels to political refugees.

To return to the topic of this thread, and Ian's original inquiry, why and how is this an important topic for the Church in the 21st century?

[Ian Gentles]

Thanks for your paper. The groups I currently teach range in age from nineteen to sixty-five. They are "old country" (European) catholics, and postmodern pragmatists. None of them chose these introductory religion courses, and some take them with violent objection. Some assume atheism, but mainly due to the absence of any religious background. It is especially rewarding to observe them experience and recognize the Presence of God for the first time. Just for fun, I will begin to ask if they have ever heard of the doctrine of impassibility.

I am most amazed in these classes by the receptivity to the Gospel. I haven't see this level of hunger since working among Southeast Asian refugees thirty years ago. Tonight I begin a class in an inner city area of Boston. Tomorrow we start a new class in what is geographically a suburban community, but characterized by English language learners and the poor. Over simplified, these are blue collar workers being forced (by state legislation) to transition to white collar roles and education level. Interesting parallels to political refugees.

To return to the topic of this thread, and Ian's original inquiry, why and how is this an important topic for the Church in the 21st century?

I think we will all be glad to hear how your classes go.

[Paul DeBaufer]

While I would tend to agree, I'm not so sure it says as much as we might hope. Perhaps the problem is not the definition but the category within which it still attempts to provide definition, that of immutability.

Is it possible that God's nature is such that he genuinely interacts with humanity, responds to human decision, and changes his course of action based on human response? In other words, God's very nature is dynamic and cannot adequately be described by the human construct of immutability without further defining and carefully parsing the term. I would suggest that all such absolute definitions of God need such parsing, which makes them far less absolute, and less helpful, than they appear.

Of course, the need is to place God beyond the realm of caprice that characterized ancient deity and to ground the idea of God in some form of constancy (which is what passages like Deut. 7:9, Mal 3:6, Psa 117:2ff express). I'm just not so sure that doing that within the confines of classical notions of un-changeability or immutability is adequate.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

I do believe I agree

[Randy Wise]

Randy, I'm a little puzzled as to what part of my post you were responding, since I find nothing in what you wrote that I don't agree with.

Thats ok as I was puzzled at your response to me. God is a living being. He reasons and thinks. Yes His abilities are more than we can imagine.

Randy