The Narrow Path Ministries

A few days ago someone called in and asked a question (the topic thereof which escapes me at the moment). But I remember Steve commenting and bringing up the doctrine of the impassability of God and how he disagrees with its notion.

The impassability of God, the way Steve explained it, is that God does not experience emotions. Now, at first glance, I agree with Steve's conclusion. When we read the Scriptures it seems quite plain that God expresses certain emotions in response to His relations with human beings. I wonder, though, if this is merely anthropomorphism at its best.

Wikipedia defines the doctrine of impassibility as follows:

wikipedia wrote:Impassibility (from Latin in-, "not", passibilis, "able to suffer, experience emotion") describes the theological doctrine that God does not experience pain or pleasure from the actions of another being. It has often been seen as a consequence of divine aseity, the idea that God is absolutely independent of any other being, i.e., in no way causally dependent. Being affected (literally made to have a certain emotion, affect) by the state or actions of another would seem to imply causal dependence.

I have begun to consider this doctrine more due to some statements in James chapter 1.


These verses seem to teach that God is not the originator of sin, but that it is our own desires which draw us into sin. The consequences of death are not from God, but are from the effect of sin coming from within us and outside of us. Therefore we can say that sin is the cause of death, and that death is not a "punishment" from God, but a punishment from sin. God is not even shaken by evil, and His character remains completely pure despite the appearance of evil. He cannot be shaken or tempted. His character remains pure and strong... unmoved.


This idea of the unchangeable character of God seems to be further developed. God is a giver of good and perfect gifts, and there is no variation or shadow of turning with Him. This kind of language seems to indicate that God cannot be varied. That is, His character cannot become dependent on outside causes. He cannot turn from being angry to joyful, or happy to displeased. God's character does not vary and does not shift like shadows. We can infer this by a simple understanding of the nature of God's attributes, namely, His infinitude. If God is infinite, then all of His attributes are infinite. Certainly His emotions belong in the category of His attributes. If God has infinite emotions, then His emotions are equally distributed, and cannot change... they are infinitely steady and equal. They do not vary. This is difficult to conceive in our finite minds, but this must be the case for an infinite, uncaused omnipotent Being. Therefore, all the ways God reveals His emotions to us in the Bible must be anthropomorphic in nature. I'm not saying God does not experience emotion, but I'm saying that God's emotions cannot vary due to His infinitude and self-existence. If they did vary, it would seem to point to a weakness in God, which His omnipotence does not allow for.

Any thoughts? Is it possible to keep the idea of God's emotions changing without hindering His infinite attributes?

Infinite attributes? What does this MEAN?

If, in theology, we start with the omni-type attributes, impassibility will seem a staple and the divine emotions we read about in Scripture will have to be explained away. This, to me, seems like starting theology in the sky and then fitting the ground info in as best we can. I'd rather start on the ground. How do we best know about God? Through Jesus, eh? "Yeah, but He was the God-man!" Well then, how about from His dealings with mankind? In both cases, we see an emotional God because we see God in relationship with His creation. Rather than starting with the omni-attributes, we should (I suggest) start with the fact that God is a relational/loving God. This will, in turn, cause us to re-define the omni-attributes.

Obviously not a full response to your post, but it is where I'd start I think Pinnock has some great insights into this topic in His 'most moved mover' (whether you are 'open' to open theism or not).

Paidion wrote:Infinite attributes? What does this MEAN?

I'm not saying that God has an infinite number of attributes. I'm saying that God has attributes which are infinite. For instance, God's love is infinite, as well as His justice, power, knowledge, wisdom, presence, etc. Since God has emotions, He must be infinitely joyful over certain things (righteousness), and infinitely displeased with other things (sin). However, the fact that a human being might commit a righteous or sinful act does not make God change His emotions willy-nilly dependent on a finite creature, but rather, God condescends to relate to us creatures in an anthropomorphic way. His character is not affected by our own actions, it only seems that way to us due to our finite understanding of God.

mattrose wrote:If, in theology, we start with the omni-type attributes, impassibility will seem a staple and the divine emotions we read about in Scripture will have to be explained away.

I can see why this might be the case. I am thinking there may be a middle ground between all-out impassibility and a God who is fully dependent on His creatures. I don't think I'm "explaining away" divine emotions, but rather arguing that it's possible that divine emotions are too infinite to alter the self-existence of God. In other words, God is not affected.

mattrose wrote:This, to me, seems like starting theology in the sky and then fitting the ground info in as best we can. I'd rather start on the ground. How do we best know about God? Through Jesus, eh? "Yeah, but He was the God-man!" Well then, how about from His dealings with mankind? In both cases, we see an emotional God because we see God in relationship with His creation. Rather than starting with the omni-attributes, we should (I suggest) start with the fact that God is a relational/loving God. This will, in turn, cause us to re-define the omni-attributes.

Perhaps you are right.

mattrose wrote:Obviously not a full response to your post, but it is where I'd start I think Pinnock has some great insights into this topic in His 'most moved mover' (whether you are 'open' to open theism or not).

This is the second time you have brought up this book... I have to get it!

The chapter "The Self-Sufficiency of God" in Tozer's "Knowledge of the Holy" goes into some of this. This book can be found free online pretty easily.

TK

Rich, do you think God's patience, longsuffering, and mercy are infinite?

I would not use the word "infinite" for qualities like love, mercy, justice, patience, etc. I would think the word "perfect" would be less problematic.

darinhouston wrote:Rich, do you think God's patience, longsuffering, and mercy are infinite?

I think that God is infinite (If He was not, then there might be a time, or have been a time, when God would no longer be existent). If God is love, then it would seem that His love is infinite. God's attributes of mercy and patience would seem to fall into the category of His selfless love. Therefore, in actuality, I would say yes... those aspects of God's character must be infinite. However, there may be the potential for God to choose to stop being merciful. I'm not saying that God is just an infinite "concept", He is still a person who makes decisions. God seems to have an end of His patience toward certain wicked individuals (it would seem, at least in this life). However, that would not be a hindrance to the nature of God's mercy as a whole. God is also infinitely just, so it may be that His justice could require some wiggle room for His other attributes. In other words, just because God's mercy might stop toward someone in particular (in order to satisfy one of His other attributes), does not mean that God must stop being merciful at some point toward others. His mercy remains infinite.

The psalms declare that "His mercy endures forever"... which would seem to point to the need to recognize that God's mercy has no end (at least toward His people, saved by grace). Whether that mercy cannot extend ultimately toward all individuals would be a debate for the universalist and those who disagree with him.

steve wrote:I would not use the word "infinite" for qualities like love, mercy, justice, patience, etc. I would think the word "perfect" would be less problematic.

I can see why that word would be a good substitute. But even if there is a temporary "break" in God's mercy or justice... would that make God's attributes in those regards subject to a finite end? In other words, if God could stop being merciful toward someone at some point, what would keep Him from stopping being merciful toward anyone else in the future? We might say that God cannot act contrary to His character. I agree. But if God can stop being a certain way for a certain circumstance... it seems to make the nature of God subject to change due to factors which are beyond Him. That makes it seem like God can be affected by an outside agent, perhaps even to His own hurt. If there is no variation in God (James 1:17), why or how can he variably alter His character due to a lesser being which should not have any effect upon Him?

Take an example. Adam and Eve. When they sinned, God was displeased. But was God affected? Did God change? Was God less of who He was because Adam and Eve sinned? We might say that God was "offended"... but that seems to me to be an anthropomorphism. Was God's nature affected by Adam and Eve's choice? I don't think so. God still remained light, and in Him was no darkness at all. In one sense God was displeased because sin is contrary to His nature. But in another sense God was not affected at all.. because He still remained in pure light.

Maybe, like Matt said, I'm thinking of God's infinitude first rather than considering His personhood first. I just think this is a difficult point to consider due to our own finite minds, and trying to wrap our minds around all of God's essence.

I can think of "infinite time" but the term "infinite love" or "infinite (any other attribute) in incoherent to me. I agree with Steve that "perfect love" would be less problematic. Indeed, I would say that it would also be more descriptive as well as coherent.