ECT Time & Anthropomorphism with GOD

[Derf]

Yes, I think in a sense. Even natives and indigenous people aren't 'clock' watchers like we are. They pay attention to the seasons, but as it relates to their needs. Some have nothing near our sense of time.

A different sense of time, which all societies have, is not the same as no sense of time.

We are also going to be 'like' Him 1 John 3:2 but still creations. We won't be like God so I'm not exactly sure how the physical universe will affect us. I'm left to guessing what the heaven and earth will be like. 1 Corinthians 2:9

I ran across AMR's impassibility blog that might be of service.

Thanks for the reference to AMR's blog entry. It fits well with this subject (and maybe has already been referenced).

I guess that's the whole crux of this conversation--is God "affected" by the things He makes? I say "yes". The bible says "yes" (you can tell by AMR's blog entry). To get to the answer of "no", we have to reinterpret the bible (as AMR explains) away from the clear reading of such texts. Is that a good idea? Should we tell people that "God doesn't really mean what He says in the bible" and "I can tell you better what God really means"?

God is a spirit, without body, parts or passions.

If we say that "spirit" means "not moveable" (if I caught AMR's and the Westminster Confession of Faith's gist correctly), but other "spirits" ARE moveable, then his/WCF's understanding of "spirit" is wrong. If God is a "special kind of spirit" (which I think we all agree with), then the lack of passions has to come from an understanding (revelation) of God specifically. Do we have specific scripture that tells us God is without passions? Rather we have the opposite. AMR agrees with this statement as well, as He caveats the "without passions" to mean not that He doesn't have passions, or even that He isn't affected by passions, but that He is not made unhappy. This seems a very tight constraint that hardly equates to the broader statement from the WCF. And, it means that God, being eternally "happy", is not made "unhappy" by sin, even in the short term. He is not made "unhappy" by death. He is not made "unhappy" by someone who rejects Christ. Scripture says otherwise, and has to be reinterpreted to affirm the view.

AMR gives the reason for this as well: because God decreed all of it, including His own reactions. But if God never really "reacts" to anything (being impassible), then God just decreed His "actions", and His "anger" is not a result of what people do (sin), but a result of His decree, something like "On such and such a date, I will get really angry and destroy a whole city and the surrounding areas." I think this is called capriciousness--getting angry without cause.

But you can't get that from direct revelation, only interpreted revelation. This bothers me a bit.

I didn't deal with the body or parts issue. These make sense to me, as anything that has parts would seem to need to have been assembled. But that doesn't mean I can say that a spirit has no parts or a body of some kind--not physical like ours, but something else--like angels which are described, or Lucifer, or....

(@Ask Mr. Religion: I don't like to quote and try to refute someone without their having a chance to respond. I hope, though, that if you do respond it will be to my points, with your own succinct words, and not just a further reference. If time doesn't allow such, I won't think less of you.)

 

[Lon]

A different sense of time, which all societies have, is not the same as no sense of time.



Thanks for the reference to AMR's blog entry. It fits well with this subject (and maybe has already been referenced).

I guess that's the whole crux of this conversation--is God "affected" by the things He makes? I say "yes". The bible says "yes" (you can tell by AMR's blog entry). To get to the answer of "no", we have to reinterpret the bible (as AMR explains) away from the clear reading of such texts. Is that a good idea? Should we tell people that "God doesn't really mean what He says in the bible" and "I can tell you better what God really means"?

:nono: I can't tell you better. God does really mean what He says. You are right.

If we say that "spirit" means "not moveable" (if I caught AMR's and the Westminster Confession of Faith's gist correctly), but other "spirits" ARE moveable, then his/WCF's understanding of "spirit" is wrong. If God is a "special kind of spirit" (which I think we all agree with), then the lack of passions has to come from an understanding (revelation) of God specifically. Do we have specific scripture that tells us God is without passions? Rather we have the opposite. AMR agrees with this statement as well, as He caveats the "without passions" to mean not that He doesn't have passions, or even that He isn't affected by passions, but that He is not made unhappy. This seems a very tight constraint that hardly equates to the broader statement from the WCF. And, it means that God, being eternally "happy", is not made "unhappy" by sin, even in the short term. He is not made "unhappy" by death. He is not made "unhappy" by someone who rejects Christ. Scripture says otherwise, and has to be reinterpreted to affirm the view.

No, not what it means. Again "not like a man nor thinks like a man..." Numbers 23:19 Isaiah 55:8,9
Verses like this are explicit in meaning. He is different from us. Again, I liken this to basic math vs higher math. If one can grasp, good, if not, I'm not particularly bothered. God meets 'us' where we are at. While we can influence one another and lift one another toward Him, I'm completely convinced we are in His hands and they are capable, He is sovereign. What is meant by God's 'impassibility' is that God cannot love us 'more.' Think of it this way: "IF" God is perfect, doesn't He ALREADY love you completely? Rather, we 'access' what is already there AND perfect. Therefore 'we' experience His love more, His love is the same as it always was. For an Open Theist, that's about anathema because then God isn't 'moved' by our prayers. That's not the case, rather we 'access' what God ALREADY wants to do for us. Imho, if we get this wrong, we then start 'actually' anthropomorphizing God and His scriptures. To me and for me, that is wrought with all of 'my' emotions. I've been there, done that. I went through quite a bit of turmoil in my younger years. I don't want to go too much into it, but the day I found out God isn't subject to whim, that when He said He was going to destroy Israel, and Moses interceded, that it was for Moses' benefit. God wasn't given to whim but the way the O.T. works, is to point to a mediator, a picture of Christ to come. It makes Israel's rejection of messiah, all the more tragic and sad. They were set up in everything to recognize the NEED for a mediator. Christ IS God's way of reaching us from His impassibility. He cannot change His nature or character, He CAN change ours! To me? That IS a huge part of the gospel: 1 Corinthians 15:52 1 John 3:2 2 Corinthians 5:17

AMR gives the reason for this as well: because God decreed all of it, including His own reactions. But if God never really "reacts" to anything (being impassible), then God just decreed His "actions", and His "anger" is not a result of what people do (sin), but a result of His decree, something like "On such and such a date, I will get really angry and destroy a whole city and the surrounding areas." I think this is called capriciousness--getting angry without cause.

... This bothers me a bit.

I truncated this but it is the same idea whether God's love or anger. He isn't going to be 'more' angry when you sin. To me, that too is a huge comfort. God remains steadfast and trustworthy and without our passions BECAUSE He is already perfect (just right) in all of them. IOW, you don't WANT a God that you can make 'love you more' or can unfortunately make 'more angry with you.' The trade-off for a 'relational' God is a "God who moves" rather than a God who is perfect. It all ties together as we discuss God 'moving through' His creation or through time on exactly the same level and concern.

What I REALLY enjoyed about my stepfather was that he was VERY even keeled. I didn't enjoy the emotional (relational?) roller-coaster of emotions that I could elicit. Oh, it might have been good for the "love" thing, but it was horrible if I screwed up. My father had a goal in mind: To make 'me' the best me I could be. After a childhood fraught with extremes, it was exactly what I needed. Later, reading scripture, I realized it was what we ALL need! 2 Timothy 2:13 was/is beautiful.

I believe if you try and attach these terms to a 'good' parent: both "relational" AND "consistent, dependable, unchanging (impassible), then you have a father or mother that cares and is seeing the bigger picture AND isn't given to emotionalism or a negative unpredictability.

IOW, you want BOTH relational AND even-keeled and consistent in a love that is ALWAYS pulling for you. My step-father used to say, "We aren't perfect parents. If they ever come out with them, I will order you a pair. Until then, try to honor your mother and father faults and all." I love him for that (thus he wasn't impassible like God). Think then of impassibility as "dependable loving qualities that are NEVER going to change."

 

[Derf]

:nono: I can't tell you better. God does really mean what He says. You are right.



No, not what it means. Again "not like a man nor thinks like a man..." Numbers 23:19 Isaiah 55:8,9
Verses like this are explicit in meaning. He is different from us.

The verses are indeed explicit in meaning, but the meaning you've written is not the one from these scriptures. They don't say "He is different from us", but "He is better than we are." He doesn't lie, lying is a sin, God doesn't do that. His thoughts are not ours (vs 8) because they are higher than ours (vs 9). You admit as much in your next sentence (below). If we apply that to emotions, and whether God can be moved by us or something else, scripture is pretty explicit about that, too. God is moved by our emotions, not to deviate from His plan or counsel, but in the midst of fulfilling His plan or counsel, to give us what we request (for instance). Why is that a concept that can't be allowed when scripture is full of such things?

Again, I liken this to basic math vs higher math. If one can grasp, good, if not, I'm not particularly bothered. God meets 'us' where we are at. While we can influence one another and lift one another toward Him, I'm completely convinced we are in His hands and they are capable, He is sovereign. What is meant by God's 'impassibility' is that God cannot love us 'more.' Think of it this way: "IF" God is perfect, doesn't He ALREADY love you completely? Rather, we 'access' what is already there AND perfect. Therefore 'we' experience His love more, His love is the same as it always was. For an Open Theist, that's about anathema because then God isn't 'moved' by our prayers. That's not the case, rather we 'access' what God ALREADY wants to do for us.

But your concept here does not make God less moved--it only puts the moving into the act of giving what He wants us to have, but still (possibly) waiting until we ask. I don't think many Open Theists are trying to say that we can change God's counsel or plans by our prayers, unless EVERYTHING that happens is God's counsel or plans (Calvinism). So it seems that you come at it from a preconception that God wants everything to happen that happens. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point here.

Imho, if we get this wrong, we then start 'actually' anthropomorphizing God and His scriptures. To me and for me, that is wrought with all of 'my' emotions. I've been there, done that. I went through quite a bit of turmoil in my younger years. I don't want to go too much into it, but the day I found out God isn't subject to whim, that when He said He was going to destroy Israel, and Moses interceded, that it was for Moses' benefit.

But you're getting that impression of God and His interaction with Moses from your emotions, not from the scripture. If you look at the scripture, it's pretty clear that God not only threatened to do away with much of Israel, He also repented of what he was going to do. Can God repent of something He was going to do? Can He decide to do different? Not in your view. Thus, that part of the scripture is superfluous, leading us to an incorrect picture of God, if it's not something He had decided to do. As others have said, what is the intention of the words: "So the LORD relented from the harm which He said He would do to His people. [Exo 32:14 NKJV]", if God didn't really change His plan.

Here are the options (with consequences in parentheses):
1. God said it but didn't really mean it (God is a liar)
2. Moses misunderstood what God meant (Moses' writings are not trustworthy)
3. God said it, and meant it, and Moses understood it correctly (Calvinism is untrustworthy)

Which consequence would you rather choose? I'm not saying it like this to demean Calvin or those that agree with him, but these are logical consequences. Maybe there are other options, but just calling it an anthropomorphism to get out of the obvious conclusion is not the best way to read the verse, imo.

God wasn't given to whim but the way the O.T. works, is to point to a mediator, a picture of Christ to come. It makes Israel's rejection of messiah, all the more tragic and sad. They were set up in everything to recognize the NEED for a mediator. Christ IS God's way of reaching us from His impassibility. He cannot change His nature or character, He CAN change ours! To me? That IS a huge part of the gospel: 1 Corinthians 15:52 1 John 3:2 2 Corinthians 5:17

I don't think I said anything about God changing His nature or character, did I? Unless you think that God's getting angry is a change in His character. If God is described by His word as getting angry (not in His BEING angry for all eternity), then it is His character to get angry sometimes. We should want to find out what makes Him angry and try not to do it.

I truncated this but it is the same idea whether God's love or anger. He isn't going to be 'more' angry when you sin. To me, that too is a huge comfort. God remains steadfast and trustworthy and without our passions BECAUSE He is already perfect (just right) in all of them. IOW, you don't WANT a God that you can make 'love you more' or can unfortunately make 'more angry with you.' The trade-off for a 'relational' God is a "God who moves" rather than a God who is perfect. It all ties together as we discuss God 'moving through' His creation or through time on exactly the same level and concern.

I don't think we can MAKE God love us, and the bible says He loved us before we loved Him. But can we make God angry? Shall I list the scriptures that show that is possible? How much time and space do you have? If we don't make God angry with our sin, and God gets angry because of sin, then God makes Himself angry. Which means, I think, that God is the author of sin.

I think I would rather God get angry because of my (and others') sin than that He gets angry because of some unaccessible reason that happened "before" time and before I (and others) existed, and that He will destroy the whole world for.

What I REALLY enjoyed about my stepfather was that he was VERY even keeled. I didn't enjoy the emotional (relational?) roller-coaster of emotions that I could elicit. Oh, it might have been good for the "love" thing, but it was horrible if I screwed up. My father had a goal in mind: To make 'me' the best me I could be. After a childhood fraught with extremes, it was exactly what I needed. Later, reading scripture, I realized it was what we ALL need! 2 Timothy 2:13 was/is beautiful.

I believe if you try and attach these terms to a 'good' parent: both "relational" AND "consistent, dependable, unchanging (impassible), then you have a father or mother that cares and is seeing the bigger picture AND isn't given to emotionalism or a negative unpredictability.

IOW, you want BOTH relational AND even-keeled and consistent in a love that is ALWAYS pulling for you. My step-father used to say, "We aren't perfect parents. If they ever come out with them, I will order you a pair. Until then, try to honor your mother and father faults and all." I love him for that (thus he wasn't impassible like God). Think then of impassibility as "dependable loving qualities that are NEVER going to change."

I appreciate your honoring description of your step father. But his strength seemed to be that he was consistent in how he used his anger. He didn't lash out uncontrollably. That doesn't mean he didn't get angry, but he got angry at the right times and for the right reasons--he was angry, but didn't sin.

A father that gets angry at the wrong things or for no discernable reason is a terror to his kids--they don't know how to act. A father that gets angry when his kids disobey and makes the punishment fit the crime is a loving father. His kids know what they did wrong and can correct it (hopefully).

The impassible god is the former, not the latter. He gets angry for some reason he dreamed up in eternity, and takes it out on people haphazardly, as far as they can tell. Thus, his anger is not productive in bringing people to repentance.

There is no cure for an impassibly angry god. There is one for the perfectly angry God, the one that gets angry when and because people disobey Him, even if that cure can't come from those people.

 

[Lon]

The verses are indeed explicit in meaning, but the meaning you've written is not the one from these scriptures. They don't say "He is different from us", but "He is better than we are." He doesn't lie, lying is a sin, God doesn't do that. His thoughts are not ours (vs 8) because they are higher than ours (vs 9). You admit as much in your next sentence (below). If we apply that to emotions, and whether God can be moved by us or something else, scripture is pretty explicit about that, too. God is moved by our emotions, not to deviate from His plan or counsel, but in the midst of fulfilling His plan or counsel, to give us what we request (for instance). Why is that a concept that can't be allowed when scripture is full of such things?

But your concept here does not make God less moved--it only puts the moving into the act of giving what He wants us to have, but still (possibly) waiting until we ask. I don't think many Open Theists are trying to say that we can change God's counsel or plans by our prayers, unless EVERYTHING that happens is God's counsel or plans (Calvinism). So it seems that you come at it from a preconception that God wants everything to happen that happens. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point here.

But you're getting that impression of God and His interaction with Moses from your emotions, not from the scripture. If you look at the scripture, it's pretty clear that God not only threatened to do away with much of Israel, He also repented of what he was going to do. Can God repent of something He was going to do? Can He decide to do different? Not in your view. Thus, that part of the scripture is superfluous, leading us to an incorrect picture of God, if it's not something He had decided to do. As others have said, what is the intention of the words: "So the LORD relented from the harm which He said He would do to His people. [Exo 32:14 NKJV]", if God didn't really change His plan.

Here are the options (with consequences in parentheses):
1. God said it but didn't really mean it (God is a liar)
2. Moses misunderstood what God meant (Moses' writings are not trustworthy)
3. God said it, and meant it, and Moses understood it correctly (Calvinism is untrustworthy)

Which consequence would you rather choose? I'm not saying it like this to demean Calvin or those that agree with him, but these are logical consequences. Maybe there are other options, but just calling it an anthropomorphism to get out of the obvious conclusion is not the best way to read the verse, imo.

I don't think I said anything about God changing His nature or character, did I? Unless you think that God's getting angry is a change in His character. If God is described by His word as getting angry (not in His BEING angry for all eternity), then it is His character to get angry sometimes. We should want to find out what makes Him angry and try not to do it.

I don't think we can MAKE God love us, and the bible says He loved us before we loved Him. But can we make God angry? Shall I list the scriptures that show that is possible? How much time and space do you have? If we don't make God angry with our sin, and God gets angry because of sin, then God makes Himself angry. Which means, I think, that God is the author of sin.

I think I would rather God get angry because of my (and others') sin than that He gets angry because of some unaccessible reason that happened "before" time and before I (and others) existed, and that He will destroy the whole world for.

I appreciate your honoring description of your step father. But his strength seemed to be that he was consistent in how he used his anger. He didn't lash out uncontrollably. That doesn't mean he didn't get angry, but he got angry at the right times and for the right reasons--he was angry, but didn't sin.

A father that gets angry at the wrong things or for no discernable reason is a terror to his kids--they don't know how to act. A father that gets angry when his kids disobey and makes the punishment fit the crime is a loving father. His kids know what they did wrong and can correct it (hopefully).

The impassible god is the former, not the latter. He gets angry for some reason he dreamed up in eternity, and takes it out on people haphazardly, as far as they can tell. Thus, his anger is not productive in bringing people to repentance.

There is no cure for an impassibly angry god. There is one for the perfectly angry God, the one that gets angry when and because people disobey Him, even if that cure can't come from those people.

I don't see a man who gets angry at the drop of a hat, as 'impassible'. Again, that isn't what it means. As I said earlier, God is the container (not that He is physical, but we and the universe are). Moving 'inside' of something where you already ARE, is omnipresence (already there, don't need to 'go' there). All Omni's are intertwined: If one then necessarily the other.

The scripture explicitly gives several of the Omni's. The others are implicit in scripture, but as I said, if you have one, you have all the others, thus God is apart from His creation.

This question always gets involved: Is God apart from His Creation? One man argued on here: "If God created us, and He is all there is, then we are a part of God and we are God." :nono: If you Google "Is God part of His creation?" You'll get immediately into a separation of views BUT this scripture puts this to rest, imho: John 4:24 It necessarily means 'no' to me. It is like saying Love is God. :nono: God is love, but that is not ALL that God is. Ephesians 4:6? Yes. ALL He is? No. " Above all" as well. John 1:18 No man has seen God at any time.

 

[Derf]

I don't see a man who gets angry at the drop of a hat, as 'impassible'. Again, that isn't what it means. As I said earlier, God is the container (not that He is physical, but we and the universe are). Moving 'inside' of something where you already ARE, is omnipresence (already there, don't need to 'go' there). All Omni's are intertwined: If one then necessarily the other.

I think you lost me at the first sentence. No, I don't think of a man that gets angry at the drop of a hat as impassible, either. But if God is impassible, not having His emotions affected by something we do, that's not what the bible describes. If that isn't what "impassible" means, what does it mean?

The scripture explicitly gives several of the Omni's. The others are implicit in scripture, but as I said, if you have one, you have all the others, thus God is apart from His creation.

The expliciticity (is that a word?) of the omnis (and I'm assuming you include the ims in keeping with our conversation), can be questioned in terms of individual verses' contexts, as well as the meaning we throw into the terms, as we are doing here.

This question always gets involved: Is God apart from His Creation? One man argued on here: "If God created us, and He is all there is, then we are a part of God and we are God." :nono: If you Google "Is God part of His creation?" You'll get immediately into a separation of views BUT this scripture puts this to rest, imho: John 4:24 It necessarily means 'no' to me. It is like saying Love is God. :nono: God is love, but that is not ALL that God is. Ephesians 4:6? Yes. ALL He is? No. " Above all" as well. John 1:18 No man has seen God at any time.

On this question, God is surely distinct from His creation, but not apart from His creation--He's intimately involved in and with His creation--He holds it all together. Neither suggests that God is either part of His creation or His creation part of Him, does it?

 

[Lon]

I think you lost me at the first sentence. No, I don't think of a man that gets angry at the drop of a hat as impassible, either. But if God is impassible, not having His emotions affected by something we do, that's not what the bible describes. If that isn't what "impassible" means, what does it mean?

Sounds like you have it correct at that point. Another way to understand: "God is already there." He already loves you to His full capacity.
I realize being Open Theist, that's anathema, but a version where we have God 'loving us more' is anthropomorphic and, imo, not what Ephesians 3:18,19 means. As far as I understand, it means 'impassible' and that's a good thing.

The expliciticity (is that a word?) of the omnis (and I'm assuming you include the ims in keeping with our conversation), can be questioned in terms of individual verses' contexts, as well as the meaning we throw into the terms, as we are doing here.

"Implicit" (implied). "Explicit" (clearly said). You can question implicit because it isn't stated clearly. You cannot question explicit very well. I've told Enyart a number of times that what he thinks is implied, isn't. It is given imho, VERY clearly. I've told him he CANNOT shoot down the omnis UNLESS he can shoot them ALL down. If even one is scriptural (several are explicit), then it is no longer Greeks who influenced orthodox Christianity, but the scriptures themselves. That will be very hard for open theism to concede, because as soon as it does, it is a domino effect and all the omnis will be accepted and we'll all be back to being just orthodox and trying to understand together what that means.

On this question, God is surely distinct from His creation, but not apart from His creation--He's intimately involved in and with His creation--He holds it all together. Neither suggests that God is either part of His creation or His creation part of Him, does it?

Again, to whatever extent that you believe God IS part of His creation, that 'part' is physical. The Lord Jesus Christ did enter the world but He was BOTH fully God and fully man. Question: Was the "God" human? IOW, was He just fully man or was there a separation? Why?

Hope that helps. In Him -Lon

 

[Derf]

Sounds like you have it correct at that point. Another way to understand: "God is already there." He already loves you to His full capacity.
I realize being Open Theist, that's anathema, but a version where we have God 'loving us more' is anthropomorphic and, imo, not what Ephesians 3:18,19 means. As far as I understand, it means 'impassible' and that's a good thing.

If the outgoing product of His emotions is the impassible part, I'm ok with that, as I don't think "love" and "hate" are mutually exclusive concepts. Thus, if God hates His enemies, it doesn't mean He doesn't also love His enemies. Thus, "love" can be complete (not possible to do "more" of it), while hate isn't fully realized. But that's why I choose to look at the hate side, because there seems to be a lesser and greater hate that God displays, depending on how people act toward Him. Depending on how you define "love", perhaps the love can diminish (though not grow), and the hate can grow. If He loved us while we were yet sinners, does He love us less when we reject His sacrifice for our sins? What is "love"?
If it is sacrificing for us, then that can come to an end once we reject the sacrifice of Christ. Is that an example of His love diminishing? Or just hate growing? Whatever it is, unless God had decided whom to hate and whom to love before He made any of us, and based purely on HOW He made us, then I can't see the impassibility of it. If God actually hates for cause, then He's NOT impassible, is He? If God hates, but not for cause, He's capricious. Impassibility seems to go along with capriciousness.

"Implicit" (implied). "Explicit" (clearly said). You can question implicit because it isn't stated clearly. You cannot question explicit very well.

I guess examples would help, here. In the impassible discussion, the verses that are explicitly impassible, are limited in the context. A limited impassibility seems oxymoronic, imo. Unless it is limited to certain emotions.

I've told Enyart a number of times that what he thinks is implied, isn't. It is given imho, VERY clearly. I've told him he CANNOT shoot down the omnis UNLESS he can shoot them ALL down. If even one is scriptural (several are explicit), then it is no longer Greeks who influenced orthodox Christianity, but the scriptures themselves. That will be very hard for open theism to concede, because as soon as it does, it is a domino effect and all the omnis will be accepted and we'll all be back to being just orthodox and trying to understand together what that means.

Do you have reference to such a discussion? I'd hate for you to go through it all again just for me, and I expect it would be educational. I don't really think impassibility is of the same weight as omniscience or omnipresence. But even those things can be argued against. If God ever has to use some kind of senses to find something out (I can think of two instances off the top of my head), then His omniscience depends on His omnipresence, but Hie omnipresence does not equally depend on His omniscience.

Again, to whatever extent that you believe God IS part of His creation, that 'part' is physical. The Lord Jesus Christ did enter the world but He was BOTH fully God and fully man. Question: Was the "God" human? IOW, was He just fully man or was there a separation? Why?

Hope that helps. In Him -Lon

God became a part of His creation in the form of Jesus Christ--physically. Is it possible for Him to ever again NOT be part of His creation? I don't think so. This is one area where God "changed", though not affecting His character, power, etc., and certainly not causing Him to miss a promise (the apparent emphasis of the "I change not" passages).

 

[Lon]

If the outgoing product of His emotions is the impassible part, I'm ok with that, as I don't think "love" and "hate" are mutually exclusive concepts. Thus, if God hates His enemies, it doesn't mean He doesn't also love His enemies. Thus, "love" can be complete (not possible to do "more" of it), while hate isn't fully realized. But that's why I choose to look at the hate side, because there seems to be a lesser and greater hate that God displays, depending on how people act toward Him. Depending on how you define "love", perhaps the love can diminish (though not grow), and the hate can grow. If He loved us while we were yet sinners, does He love us less when we reject His sacrifice for our sins? What is "love"?

God is love. In fact ANYTHING we'd EVER define, the definition is found in God alone.

If it is sacrificing for us, then that can come to an end once we reject the sacrifice of Christ. Is that an example of His love diminishing? Or just hate growing? Whatever it is, unless God had decided whom to hate and whom to love before He made any of us, and based purely on HOW He made us, then I can't see the impassibility of it. If God actually hates for cause, then He's NOT impassible, is He? If God hates, but not for cause, He's capricious. Impassibility seems to go along with capriciousness.

I think you grasp it well if any uncommunicable attribute (something God has, man does not) can be said to be 'grasped.'

I guess examples would help, here. In the impassible discussion, the verses that are explicitly impassible, are limited in the context. A limited impassibility seems oxymoronic, imo. Unless it is limited to certain emotions.

A question or so might help: Is God ever going to be ANY angrier at sin than He already is? Is God going to love you ANY more than HIS full capacity? I love the Ephesians 3:18 passage on this btw. Here is the thing, I expect you to say 'no' because God IS the definition of Love. That said, His love already IS infinite according to Ephesians 3:18, 19. What does it mean? That 1) It is ALREADY mind-blowingly beyond our grasp, yet Paul asks us to discover its height, depth, and width. It is impossible, but OUR picture of it will and can ONLY grow. As such, the answer has to remain "God can't love me any more." Infinite is infinite, it can't get bigger or more.

Do you have reference to such a discussion? I'd hate for you to go through it all again just for me, and I expect it would be educational. I don't really think impassibility is of the same weight as omniscience or omnipresence. But even those things can be argued against. If God ever has to use some kind of senses to find something out (I can think of two instances off the top of my head), then His omniscience depends on His omnipresence, but Hie omnipresence does not equally depend on His omniscience.

AMR has about everything he's ever said categorized and I'm jealous. For this I'd have to do a lot of digging. Basically, I gave him scriptures that explicitly gave several Omni's and told him he 'couldn't' blame such on Greeks after that. I believe I then said in thread, that all Omni's necessarily uphold the other Omni's. Back to your omnipresent leading to omniscience, Colossians 1:17 If nothing exists without Him, then He knows what is needed for that existence as well as it doing so by Him alone John 15:5 (might need a bit of further discussion).

God became a part of His creation in the form of Jesus Christ--physically. Is it possible for Him to ever again NOT be part of His creation? I don't think so. This is one area where God "changed", though not affecting His character, power, etc., and certainly not causing Him to miss a promise (the apparent emphasis of the "I change not" passages).

When the heavens and the earth pass away, will God's 'humanity' pass away? :think: My finger 'may' remain wet for awhile after dipping it in water, but I yet don't (and can't) live under water and it won't stay wet. God DID enter our world in flesh, after whatever fashion we can understand that, but He is not physical. The Lord Jesus Christ wasn't/isn't an inception (with a beginning). He is the same yesterday, today, AND forever (importantly). I agree with your discussion about His unchanging nature. Again, I think the OV but relearning what has been orthodox and I think we could have done a better job of explaining this. Our 'education' process isn't what it used to be. People used to go to Sunday School and well into their adult years. We didn't always do 'current events' for class instruction, but focused on doctrine better. The need for it is still there. Perhaps in some ways, forums help at least a little in picking up some of the slack? :idunno:

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Impassibility of God

Impassibility of God

If that isn't what "impassible" means, what does it mean?

Joy, anger, love, etc., when used of God are volitions, not emotions. God is impassible. His will. See Eph. 1:11.

Here is some study on the attributes of God.

To be impassible is not to imply unconcern, impersonal detachment, or impassivity (apathetic). God is not insensitive, nor indifferent to the situation of distress of this fall world. Impassibility does not imply any unwillingness on God's part to be empathetic to pain and suffering of His creatures. But, God's empathy is an act of His volitional will, not some reaction to what is happening (as we creatures are prone to with our emotions). God's love before time for those He has chosen is something He willed. God has no unfulfilled desires or regrets.

Rather, impassibility of God means the experiences of God do not come up upon Him as do ours. Why? All that happens is foreknown to God, willed by God. God is never surprised by what is taking place. We cannot inflict upon God pain or distress. God's joy is permanent, unclouded by involuntary pain.

We should not assume that because we have some emotional reactions to events around us that God must also behave the same way. God need not be emotional to be immanent.

For example, the wrath of God is but His choice to destroy and oppose what is contrary to His own principles. God's jealousy is His volitional will to inflict harm for in return (to avenge) His own honor.

Do not take the bait of those who raise the canard that the impassibility of God is something out of Greek philosophy. The unmoved Mover of the Greek philosopher, bears no resemblance to what the Reformed have held concerning God's impassibility.

When we encounter Scripture accounts that seem to imply emotions on the part of God (God repents, God is sorrowful, etc.), we must not fall for the assumption that these describe the way God is, but rather, we must assume that these accounts describe God's volitional will to act in this manner towards His creatures. The proposition, often erroneously mounted from the "image of God" argument, which states since man is X, therefore God is X, is fallacious. For starters, the direction of the argument is reversed, further the Creator-creature distinction is abolished.

AMR

 

[Derf]

God is love. In fact ANYTHING we'd EVER define, the definition is found in God alone.

I think you grasp it well if any uncommunicable attribute (something God has, man does not) can be said to be 'grasped.'

A question or so might help: Is God ever going to be ANY angrier at sin than He already is? Is God going to love you ANY more than HIS full capacity? I love the Ephesians 3:18 passage on this btw. Here is the thing, I expect you to say 'no' because God IS the definition of Love. That said, His love already IS infinite according to Ephesians 3:18, 19. What does it mean? That 1) It is ALREADY mind-blowingly beyond our grasp, yet Paul asks us to discover its height, depth, and width. It is impossible, but OUR picture of it will and can ONLY grow. As such, the answer has to remain "God can't love me any more." Infinite is infinite, it can't get bigger or more.

Is a mother's love lesser or greater when she has more children? Does a mother love a particular child less in a large family than in a single child family? I'd have to say she loves more in a large family, rather than rationing love between children. Did God start loving more when He created creatures to love? I'd say He started loving more, because He applied it to more people (instead of just the Godhead). Certainly He doesn't retract some love from the Son and the Spirit in order to apply more to people that He loves. I think this is what you mean by infinite love. But I don't know that love can be measured in such a way, any more than hate.

If He hates (is God's hate infinite also?), then was His hate the same before creation than it was after the fall? Has God always hated, even when there was nothing to hate?

Or did God really always have so much hate, and nowhere to direct it, so He made reprobates?

I think we can more safely say that God loves perfectly, and God hates perfectly. When the situation requires, the right amount of love and/or hate is applied.

But that removes impassibility, doesn't it?

AMR has about everything he's ever said categorized and I'm jealous.

:thumb:

For this I'd have to do a lot of digging. Basically, I gave him scriptures that explicitly gave several Omni's and told him he 'couldn't' blame such on Greeks after that. I believe I then said in thread, that all Omni's necessarily uphold the other Omni's. Back to your omnipresent leading to omniscience, Colossians 1:17 If nothing exists without Him, then He knows what is needed for that existence as well as it doing so by Him alone John 15:5 (might need a bit of further discussion).

I've eschewed the "blame it on the Greeks" line from the first time I heard it. For one thing, the Greeks might not be wrong about everything, even when related to God--they are descended from someone who knew God. For another, our source has to be God's revelation to us, and if what's in the Word matches what the Greeks say, who cares that they say it too? On the other hand, if what Christians say doesn't match what the Word says, we should be concerned.

The question, then, is "Did God really say..."? This is why the declaration of anthropomorphism is so devastating, and why I tend to talk about lying a lot. I don't like to call people liars. I like even less when someone calls God a liar. But one of the two seems to be happening.

When the heavens and the earth pass away, will God's 'humanity' pass away? :think: My finger 'may' remain wet for awhile after dipping it in water, but I yet don't (and can't) live under water and it won't stay wet. God DID enter our world in flesh, after whatever fashion we can understand that, but He is not physical. The Lord Jesus Christ wasn't/isn't an inception (with a beginning). He is the same yesterday, today, AND forever (importantly). I agree with your discussion about His unchanging nature. Again, I think the OV but relearning what has been orthodox and I think we could have done a better job of explaining this. Our 'education' process isn't what it used to be. People used to go to Sunday School and well into their adult years. We didn't always do 'current events' for class instruction, but focused on doctrine better. The need for it is still there. Perhaps in some ways, forums help at least a little in picking up some of the slack? :idunno:

When the heavens and earth pass away, they will be replaced with new heavens and new earth. When our humanity passes away, it will be replaced with a new humanity, one that is incorruptible. I don't see anything to suggest that Jesus Christ will cease to be the son of man, and plenty to suggest that He remains so. But He wasn't a son of man before man existed. Something about God changed forever when the Son took on flesh. (I know that's an Enyart point, but it's a good one.)

Yet He remains the same yesterday and forever. This informs our understanding of what it means that He "remains the same". It can't mean that He never took on the form of man, and it can't mean that He always had the form of man. as both of these are refuted in scripture--unless you anthropomorphize the language. His "changelessness" is not infinite, but bounded. I'm not sure we know all the ways it is bounded, but the references to His changelessness usually refer to a particular quality of God--like that He will never break His promises (a form of lying). Does it mean He never has or has had a new thought? That I can't tell, except where He has created beings that think for themselves. His thoughts about what to do with them might have changed depending on what they do/have done.

Most importantly, His taking on human form was due to human sin. And if that's the case, impassibility goes out the window. Omniscience as defined by settled theists isn't helpful either in a world whose future is open to some degree. That's what I mean by arguing against the omnis--not that they aren't there, but that our understanding needs to be tempered by the scriptures, rather than the scriptures being tempered by our understanding.

Do we really need to say that when God created the earth and Adam that He was already planning to destroy the earth with a flood in about 1500 years? Or can we say that the extent of man's sin caused that reaction in Him?

A better way to ask this is to say, "What causes us to believe that God would have planned to destroy the earth with the flood prior to His creating it?" The only answer that makes sense to me is the doctrine of God's omniscience of every future thing. And this is further restricted, in Calvinism, to the doctrine of God's exhaustive decrees.

When I read the bible, I don't see those things as taught or necessary, Greeks or no Greeks. Maybe we need to understand all of the omnis and ims better.

 

[Derf]

Joy, anger, love, etc., when used of God are volitions, not emotions. God is impassible. His will. See Eph. 1:11.

Does "all" mean "all" in Eph. 1:11? Or does it mean "all the things God works"? If it means "all", then it means God is the author of sin, since He works all things. If God is NOT the author of sin, then He doesn't work all things. That doesn't hurt the verse any, as it just limits its subject matter to the things God works.

Rather, impassibility of God means the experiences of God do not come up upon Him as do ours. Why? All that happens is foreknown to God, willed by God. God is never surprised by what is taking place. We cannot inflict upon God pain or distress. God's joy is permanent, unclouded by involuntary pain.

Why do we know that God is impassive? Because the future is settled.
Why do we know the future is settled? Because of God's impassivity.
QED