Featured Is God Passible?

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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).

 

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?"