Is God Passible?

[JonC]

Thank you for supplying this, JonC, and I apologize for my delay in coming back to you.

First of all, I need to confess that to my shame I have never read Calvin's Institutes. However, I don't think this quote squares with what you wrote earlier.

What I think Calvin is saying is that God does not feel emotions as we feel them. As I have tried to show, God's love, wrath etc. do not well up and subside, but are constant and invariable. He does not indeed get 'perturbed.' Here is Calvin on John 3:16.

So Calvin is saying that there is a love of God towards men, but this love is not based on mere emotion, nor on any good perceived in the creature, but solely upon His free electing will from eternity.

Thanks, Martin, for getting back with me. I think with Calvin the larger issue will be his commentary on divine anger (that "anger" is never a feeling "felt" by God but a concession for our benefit). John Calvin is fairly adamant that God does not experience anger as emotion (and his reasons do seem logical). But I agree that the quote concerning love is not supported well.

I have argued elsewhere that divine wrath should be understood in context of divine love, and that ontological to God himself (which is actually close to Shedd). I still hold that view, but I am not sure I have reflected that here. I suppose my preference would be to look at specific examples. I do, for instance, believe that God felt sorrow as in a grief that he had made man. Not that he did not ordain all that would transpire, or know what would occur, but that in occurring the appropriate response in accord to God's nature would be sorrow. But I realize some would view this as a breach of sovereignty or immutability. And perhaps it is inconsistent as theory, but that doesn't change the fact that from the text I arrive at an understanding that God experienced grief.

Anyway, I recommend you pick up Calvin's Institutes when you get a chance. I have read it once but I reference it often. Also, Calvin's work on prayer is outstanding.

 

[Van]

[QUOTE="a SATS prof,]and He blows smoke through His nostrils. Ever hear of anthropomorphism?

For the third time, IF God is eternal and omniscient, He does not BEGIN to feel emotion because He has known BEFORE creation EVERYTHING men would do. Do you deny that?
[/QUOTE]

Many use "anthropomorphism" as an excuse to throw the baby out with the bath water. God illustrates truth, to claim the truth does not count because it was presented by illustration is folly.

Your argument from silence is to claim an attribute of God means something without specific support. For example God is eternal is truth, but to claim God does not experience things in spiritual time is fiction.

 

[a SATS prof]

[QUOTE="a SATS prof,]and He blows smoke through His nostrils. Ever hear of anthropomorphism?

For the third time, IF God is eternal and omniscient, He does not BEGIN to feel emotion because He has known BEFORE creation EVERYTHING men would do. Do you deny that?

Many use "anthropomorphism" as an excuse to throw the baby out with the bath water. God illustrates truth, to claim the truth does not count because it was presented by illustration is folly.

Your argument from silence is to claim an attribute of God means something without specific support. For example God is eternal is truth, but to claim God does not experience things in spiritual time is fiction.[/QUOTE]

---
I said, He didn't BEGIN to experience an emotion in time.

What is "spiritual time"?

 

[a SATS prof]

We are totally dependent upon God to reveal himself to us. I have a hard time with any form of human thought that questions God's perfections....

to speak of" God in time begins to experience"....I think first off- was there something, anything, God had to learn? To suggest this is an impossibility. A god who needs to learn is NOT the biblical God.
-----------

agreed

 

[Van]

What is spiritual time? Some suggest since physical time was created, then "time - events occurring in sequence rather than all at once - does not exist in eternity. But we know spirits in heaven were aware of the passage of "time" and therefore in God's spiritual realm, some awareness of sequence exists, which can be called "spiritual" rather than physical time.

Belief based on scripture is sound, but belief based on speculation is unsound. JMO

 

[HankD]

What is spiritual time? Some suggest since physical time was created, then "time - events occurring in sequence that than all at once - does not exist in eternity. But we know spirits in heaven were aware of the passage of "time" and therefore in God's spiritual realm, some awareness of sequence exists, which can be called "spiritual" rather than physical time.

Belief based on scripture is sound, but belief based on speculation is unsound. JMO

To me - its another comfort zone category called "mystery" (I better watch out or I'll become a mystic).

HankD

 

[Van]

To me - its another comfort zone category called "mystery" (I better watch out or I'll become a mystic).

HankD

I have feared that for a long ... wait for it... time.

 

[HankD]

I have feared that for a long ... wait for it... time.

HankD

 

[a SATS prof]

What is spiritual time? Some suggest since physical time was created, then "time - events occurring in sequence rather than all at once - does not exist in eternity. But we know spirits in heaven were aware of the passage of "time" and therefore in God's spiritual realm, some awareness of sequence exists, which can be called "spiritual" rather than physical time.

Belief based on scripture is sound, but belief based on speculation is unsound. JMO

---
And some verses proving "spiritual time" are??

To some, speculation is only what the other guy is doing!

 

[Deacon]

"The God who creates and redeems by necessity is not the God of the Bible, who creates and redeems gratuitously. God does not create “because of a superabundance which has to find an outlet, as it were, and if it did not overflow in the creation of a world would be imperfection, discord or suffering.” God creates out of the freedom of his love, not because he must create but because he inexplicably wills to bestow life on a world whose doom and destruction he already foresees.

In contradistinction to the god of Greek philosophy, the personal God of biblical religion has a heart. “He can feel and be affected … He cannot be moved from outside by an extraneous power. But this does not mean that He is not capable of moving Himself” No, God is “moved and stirred” by his own “free power” to relieve our distress.

There is no necessity or justice to which God must conform. He is his own necessity, and he wills justice because it is his nature to do so. God is not “the One who loves necessarily” but “the One who loves in freedom.” The biblical Christian would not say with the philosopher Nicolas Malebranche that “God necessarily loves that which is supremely and infinitely lovable, His own substance, the infinite good.” This is still eros love, the love that is attracted to what has greatest value. God does love himself, but he does so with agape, for as a fellowship of persons he can experience self–giving love.

God is free to be himself and to go out of himself. He is free to remain in the impassible glory of his trinitarian life, and he is free to take suffering and pain upon himself by giving life to a new creation. He is not the “Unmoved Mover” (Aristotle); he allows himself to be moved by the cries and anguish of his people. Yet there is no metaphysical necessity that drives him out of himself to answer human need but simply the boundlessness of his compassion, which, is incomparable and incomprehensible."

Bloesch, Donald G. God, the Almighty: Power, Wisdom, Holiness, Love. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006. (pp. 46–47).

 

[Deacon]

The Divine impassibility means that the Divine nature cannot be caused to suffer from an external cause. Nothing in the created universe can make God feel pain or mystery.

Jealousy is a provocative emotion; God is provoked to jealousy.
Does God suffer from jealousy?

“They made him jealous with their foreign gods and angered him with their detestable idols.” (Deuteronomy 32:16, NIV)

In fact God even defines himself by the reaction caused by the sinful rejection of his people.

“You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,” (Deuteronomy 5:9, NIV)

[Arguing with myself here ]

Rob

 

[Van]

---
And some verses proving "spiritual time" are??

I take it you deny that scripture teaches "we know spirits in heaven were aware of the passage of "time" and therefore in God's spiritual realm, some awareness of sequence exists, which can be called "spiritual" rather than physical time." Try Revelation 6:9-11.

Now supply a verse or passage that teaches the absence of time (sequential events) in eternity. Or is your assertion simply based on the speculation of men?

 

[a SATS prof]

I take it you deny that scripture teaches "we know spirits in heaven were aware of the passage of "time" and therefore in God's spiritual realm, some awareness of sequence exists, which can be called "spiritual" rather than physical time." Try Revelation 6:9-11.

Now supply a verse or passage that teaches the absence of time (sequential events) in eternity. Or is your assertion simply based on the speculation of men?

---
Not quite so fast. Why must i think spirits experience as God?

 

[JonC]

I think it fair to conclude that we transitioned from a biblical/theological discussion to a metaphysical/theological discussion several posts back, so I will also point out that time is time. It is an objective continued process of existence, and is neither physical nor spiritual (there is no “spiritual time” or “physical time”, what is being spoken of here are subjective experiences of time). The question is not if God is “outside time” because there is no such thing as being “inside time.” Instead questions of this nature should be pointed towards whether or not God is affected by the progression of time (ontological immutability and relational mutability, transcendence and immanence, modes of divine knowledge, etc.) because such terms as immutability, foreknowledge, and even faithfulness as applied to Deity denotes a common, objective and universal apprehension of time (time progresses, God remains constant; time progresses, God foreknows; time progresses, God is faithful). I’m not saying that this is not an interesting subject, but I am suggesting that it seems to be drifting more and more towards purely philosophical arguments.

 

[TCassidy]

Back to the original discussion. No, it is not possible to change the emotions of God. When we find a term in the bible such as "grieve not the holy Spirit of God" we understand that in an anthropomorphic sense. "Do not act toward the Holy Spirit in a manner which would produce pain in the bosom of a human friend who loves you."

 

[JonC]

Back to the original discussion. No, it is not possible to change the emotions of God. When we find a term in the bible such as "grieve not the holy Spirit of God" we understand that in an anthropomorphic sense. "Do not act toward the Holy Spirit in a manner which would produce pain in the bosom of a human friend who loves you."

I agree that it is impossible for man to change the emotions of God. But is it possible for God to have a change of emotion?

 

[TCassidy]

I agree that it is impossible for man to change the emotions of God. But is it possible for God to have a change of emotion?

No. God cannot change. If He changed for the better He would not have been Perfect prior to the change. If He changed for the worse He would no longer be God.

God is already everything He needs to be or ever will need to be. No change necessary.

 

[JonC]

No. God cannot change. If He changed for the better He would not have been Perfect prior to the change. If He changed for the worse He would no longer be God.

God is already everything He needs to be or ever will need to be. No change necessary.

Thanks for the explanation. That’s what I thought you meant, but I wanted to be sure. I agree with your first comment, that it is not possible to change the emotions of God. I disagree with your second, that it is impossible for God to have a change in emotion. Perhaps our difference here is in terms of definition, or perhaps in terms of what constitutes change. I’m not sure. I say this because I do agree with all you have written here, except the first word – “No.”

Here is why I disagree. A change in emotion does not constitute a change in a being. Emotions are not ontological, but they are expressions of one’s nature (one’s being). They are relational. God grieving, or loving, or becoming angry, all of these have no bearing on God’s nature except that God is not internally static (there is life). This does not violate immutability because immutability refers to God’s nature and being. God does not change. This does not violate sovereignty because these emotions are God’s expressive nature (they are not said to be reactionary in terms of being cause by situations or things external to God, but instead are said to be reactionary in that God chooses to engage creation). Emotions are neither a change for the better or for the worse as emotions are not changes at all.

As I stated a couple of posts ago, this conversation (perhaps by necessity) depends highly on philosophical argument. The idea that emotions reflect a dependency upon something else, an internal change, an incompleteness or need, a compartmentalization of being, and a state of imperfection that can improve or decline is philosophical theory. I lean towards Shedd more on the point of impassibility. I believe it more consistent that God does have and express emotion, but not as men and not subjective towards external causes. God angers, loves, has compassion, expresses genuine wrath….all as true experience….and all in concrete terms of his love. This is holiness expressed both inwardly (as God’s own nature) and outwardly (towards man as objects).

So for me, I believe that God does love and anger and have compassion. But I do understand and appreciate your position. It is a classic position within theology, and will be until Jesus comes.....when it's rejected for my position as we'll all see clearly...Biggrin....(just kidding....this is an interesting topic and I do respect your conclusions here).

 

[TCassidy]

So for me, I believe that God does love and anger and have compassion.

I believe so too. But God's love has always been perfect love so He never changes. And His anger has always been perfect anger so He never changes. And God's compassion has always been perfect compassion so He never changes.

As the pundit once said, "Did it ever occur to you that nothing ever occurred to God?"

 

[Van]

---
Not quite so fast. Why must i think spirits experience as God?

I provided compelling evidence "time" exists in heaven, in God's spiritual realm. You did not supply any verse to support your assertion. So you charge me with pulling a fast one.