Featured Is God Passible?

I looked up "impassible" spelled with an "i" rather than an "a" (ible not able.) Sure enough the meaning was "not subject to suffering or pain." Next, based on the response that Jesus is God and did suffer, we learn that "divine nature" was meant to refer to God the Father.

God the Father is a "person" having the three qualities of personhood, intellect, emotion and will. Since God experiences (or can choose to experience) emotion, why not suffering and "emotional pain?"

Why does Genesis 6:3 say God's Spirit will not strive with man? Sounds like God is not willing to suffer endlessly or needlessly.

 

Of course one can assert whenever scripture says Jesus suffered, it was His mankind nature, not His divine nature. But without evidence, the assertion must be classified as an argument from silence.

Agreed, Jesus is God the Son, the second person of the Trinity, the Word, Logos, and not the first person, God the Father. My opinion is all three persons of the Trinity suffered.

Again, no argument that the Trinity existed always, eternally and created time. But the claim the Trinity did not experience "spiritual time" is again an argument from silence. We know that people in heaven are aware of the passage of time.

And again, when we say God does not change or is immutable, we mean His characteristics do not change, He is same yesterday, today and forever. OTOH, God makes conditional covenants, if we do this, He will do that, if we do not, then He will do something else, such as if we repent, He will relent.

Lastly just because we know something, does not preclude it grieving us. I know my father is dead, but when something nifty happens, I often think "oh I can tell Dad about this" only to realize at least for the time being, I cannot.

 

Well, it's become a hot potato amongst Reformed Baptists recently. I believe that there's been a split (amicable, I understand) within A.R.B.C.A. over the issue.
Just recently, no fewer than three books have been written on the subject; you can find them all at http://www.rbap.net/ To my shame, I must confess that I have not yet bought one of them, much less read them

 

An argument from silence is to claim an attribute of God without any scriptural support. John 5:26 does not address whether God the Father can suffer or experience emotional pain. No one said or suggested God the Father ever died. No verse says only Jesus suffered, and the Father and the Spirit never suffered.

If your view is that God cannot experience emotion, then a whole slew of additional verses indicate otherwise.

 

The doctrine of Impassibility is new to me, although not so strange that I can't relate to it. It was a slow day at work today (probably the last slow day for the rest of the month) and I searched Amazon for books dealing with this…and up popped a book I already own, D.A. Carsons, The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God. There's a heading entitled, "A Rightly Constrained Impassability".

What he writes helps me to put impassibility in a proper perspective.

 

"Yet before we utterly write off the impassibility of God, we must gratefully recognize what that doctrine is seeking to preserve. It is trying to ward off the kind of sentimentalizing views of the love of God and of other emotions (“passions”) in God that ultimately make him a souped-up human being but no more. For instance, a God who is terribly vulnerable to the pain caused by our rebellion is scarcely a God who is in control or a God who is so perfect he does not, strictly speaking, need us. …

 

…I am suggesting that we will successfully guard against the evils that impassibility combats if we recognize that God’s “passions,” unlike ours, do not flare up out of control. Our passions change our direction and priorities, domesticating our will, controlling our misery and our happiness, surprising and destroying or establishing our commitments. But God’s “passions,” like everything else in God, are displayed in conjunction with the fullness of all his other perfections." (Carson, pp. 59, 61).
[Still having problems with not being able to post longer messages!]

Rob

 

We must be careful not to confuse impassibility with apathy. Gods emotions are eternal and constant.
His love for His people is from everlasting (Jer. 31:3; Eph. 1:4-6).
His love for His people is constant (John 10:28; Heb. 13:5).
His hatred for sin was right from the start (Gen. 3:14ff).
His anger against sinners is constant (Psalm 7:11).
His salvation was planned in eternity (Titus 1:2) and is all of Him, not contingent on us (James 1:18).
Jesus Christ was the Lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world (Luke 22:22; Rev. 13:8).
God does not change or turn (James 1:17). Any apparent change of plan was decreed in eternity (Acts 15:18).
He is not needy and requires nothing (Psalm 50:12-13; Acts 17:25).
Nothing that we can give Him enhances Him; it is He that enhances us (Acts 17:25-26; James 1:17).

These are just a few verses that come to mind. I'm sure that wiser brothers than I will be able to think of more and better ones.

I think it was Jurgen Moltmann who promoted a needy, touchy-feely God. He didn't find that in the Bible.

 

SATs,
You may already know this, but sometimes a new person to the forum doesn't.

When you want to break into a quote of another poster that you are replying too, use "[/quote]" (without the " ") and then hit the return button one time, and only that part of the quote will appear in the shaded background and your comments won't be a part of it.

If you want to continue with another part of that poster's quote, highlight and copy the first part that is in brackets, for example "[Qu ote="egghead", post: xxxxxxx, member: xxxxx"]" (again without the " "). Be sure that there is no space on the word "quote" I added it so the line would show up and not appear in a quote box. Then when you desire to again reply, if it is not at the end of that poster's post, you must again use "[/quote]," and so forth. Although, as you look at the typical end of a poster's quote, you will see that is already added - do not add it again if it already there.

Now if that isn't confusing enough, let me know.

 

Do you have a quote from Calvin, or indeed from any other major Reformer to this effect?
As I said to Van, impassibility is not to be confused with apathy.