‘Divine Immutability and Impassibility'

  • Thread starter Thread starter BroomWagon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
when we hear God wills something or acts on his will, this seems to denote some sort of action, decision making as well
And this may be the source of the disconnect here. When God ‘wills’, He does not ‘act’ or ‘make a decision’. That’s the way that we, as humans, act. Since there is no distinct act, per se (since that would mean that God had ‘changed’ (that is, went through three states – pre-act, act, post-act)), there is no opportunity for change in emotion.

If we say that God is literally ‘grieved’, then we’re saying that God feels sorrow, per se. Again, from the Summa Theologiae (I.20.1 ad 2) (all emphases mine):
[A]s regards the formal element of certain passions a certain imperfection is implied, as in desire, which is of the good we have not, and in sorrow, which is about the evil we have. This applies also to anger, which supposes sorrow. Certain other passions, however, as love and joy, imply no imperfection. Since therefore none of these can be attributed to God on their material side, as has been said (ad 1); neither can those that even on their formal side imply imperfection be attributed to Him; except metaphorically, and from likeness of effects, as already shown (3, 2, ad 2; 19, 11). Whereas, those that do not imply imperfection, such as love and joy, can be properly predicated of God, though without attributing passion to Him
So, if you want to say that God ‘grieves’ or ‘feels sorrow’, metaphorically, then go right ahead. Just don’t think that you’re actually saying that God really feels these things; you’re just using a mode of expression that helps your understanding – it doesn’t really describe God. 😉
 
God, who is incorruptible and unchangeable and invisible, but who sees all things and changes them and alters them as He wills.
Umm… Broom? You realize, don’t you, that this says that God changes things, not that things change God, right? All that God ‘does’ is to will things… 😉
 
St. Pope Gregory the Great also tells us:
Pope St. Gregory the Great (c. 540 - 604)
God is called jealous, angered, repentant, merciful, and foreknowing. These simply mean that, because He guards the chastity of every soul, He can, in human fashion, be called jealous, although He is not subject to any mental torment. Because He moves against faults, He is said to be angered, although He is moved by no disturbance of equanimity. And because He that is immutable changes what He willed, He is said to repent, although what changes is a thing and not His counsel.
(Moral Teachings From Job, 20, 32, 63; in JUR-3, 317)
 
And this may be the source of the disconnect here. When God ‘wills’, He does not ‘act’ or ‘make a decision’. That’s the way that we, as humans, act. Since there is no distinct act, per se (since that would mean that God had ‘changed’ (that is, went through three states – pre-act, act, post-act)), there is no opportunity for change in emotion.

If we say that God is literally ‘grieved’, then we’re saying that God feels sorrow, per se. Again, from the Summa Theologiae (I.20.1 ad 2) (all emphases mine):

So, if you want to say that God ‘grieves’ or ‘feels sorrow’, metaphorically, then go right ahead. Just don’t think that you’re actually saying that God really feels these things; you’re just using a mode of expression that helps your understanding – it doesn’t really describe God. 😉
Please, you said “Acts of His Will” not me. Also, I am not the one who said God feels it metaphorically, I am saying that is the way the words “grieved” are explained away.
 
Umm… Broom? You realize, don’t you, that this says that God changes things, not that things change God, right? All that God ‘does’ is to will things…
Excuse me, I read the words: they are there to read! Period. If you don’t agree, you don’t agree with the Church Fathers.
Aristides of Athens (fl. c. 140)
. . . God, who is incorruptible and unchangeable and invisible, but who sees all things and changes them and alters them as He wills.
 
God does not experience sorrow or pain according to the Fathers and scholastics. He cannot “suffer”, that is part of what the doctrine of impassibility entails:
Seeing how you are a stickler, the word “sorrow” was not mentioned and I don’t think Sorrow is synonymous with Pain.

Pain, synonyms:
Synonyms: ache, affliction, agony, burn, catch, convulsion, cramp, crick, discomfort, distress, fever, gripe, hurt, illness, injury, irritation, laceration, malady, misery, pang, paroxysm, prick, sickness, smarting, soreness, spasm, sting, stitch, strain, tenderness, throb, throe, tingle, torment, torture, trouble, twinge, wound
Though concede grief and sorrow may be the same thing.

The Bible does straight ahead say in Genesis 6:6,
The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.
If you don’t agree with that, you don’t agree with the Bible, the Inspired word of God.
 
Please, you said “Acts of His Will” not me. Also, I am not the one who said God feels it metaphorically, I am saying that is the way the words “grieved” are explained away.
Yes it and other such passages are explained away figuratively not just by Joe Bloggs but by the Fathers of the Church and the scholastics such as St. Thomas Aquinas 😉 :
St. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 - c. 215)
Here again arise the cavillers, who say that joy and pain are passions of the soul: for they define joy as a rational elevation and exultation, as rejoicing on account of what is good; and pity as pain for one who suffers undeservedly; and that such affections are moods and passions of the soul. But** we, as would appear, do not cease in such matters to understand the Scriptures carnally; and starting from our own affections, interpret the will of the impassible Deity similarly to our perturbations**; and as we are capable of hearing; so, supposing the same to be the case with the Omnipotent, err impiously. For the Divine Being cannot be declared as it exists: but as we who are fettered in the flesh were able to listen, so the prophets spake to us; the Lord savingly accommodating Himself to the weakness of men.
Origen (c. 185 - c. 254)
“…When we read either in the Old Testament or in the New of the anger of God, we do not take such expressions literally, but seek in them a spiritual meaning, that we may think of God as He deserves to be thought of. And on these points, when expounding the verse in the second Psalm, ‘Then shall He speak to them in His anger, and trouble them in His fury,’ we showed, to the best of our poor ability, how such an expression ought to be understood…But as, in what follows, Celsus, not understanding that the language of Scripture regarding God is adapted to an anthropopathic point of view, ridicules those passages which speak of words of anger addressed to the ungodly, and of threatenings directed against sinners, we have to say that, as we ourselves, when talking with very young children, do not aim at exerting our own power of eloquence, but, adapting ourselves to the weakness of our charge, both say and do those things which may appear to us useful for the correction and improvement of the children as children, so the word of God appears to have dealt with the history, making the capacity of the hearers, and the benefit which they were to receive, the standard of the appropriateness of its announcements (regarding Him). And, generally, with regard to such a style of speaking about God, we find in the book of Deuteronomy the following: “The Lord thy God bare with your manners, as a man would bear with the manners of his son.” It** is, as it were, assuming the manners of a man in order to secure the advantage of men that the Scripture makes use of such expressions; for it would not have been suitable to the condition of the multitude, that what God had to say to them should be spoken by Him in a manner more befitting the majesty of His own person**. And yet he who is anxious to attain a true understanding of holy Scripture, will discover the spiritual truths which are spoken by it to those who are called “spiritual,” by comparing the meaning of what is addressed to those of weaker mind with what is announced to such as are of acuter understanding, both meanings being frequently found in the same passage by him who is capable of comprehending it…”
 
Excuse me, I read the words: they are there to read! Period. If you don’t agree, you don’t agree with the Church Fathers.
Broom,

Compare Gorgias saying:
You realize, don’t you, that this says that God changes things, not that things change God, right? All that God ‘does’ is to will things
With St. Pope Gregory:
And because He that is immutable changes what He willed, He is said to repent, although what changes is a thing and not His counsel.
 
Yes it and other such passages are explained away figuratively not just by Joe Bloggs but by the Fathers of the Church and the scholastics such as St. Thomas Aquinas
Yes, we know all this and I don’t appreciate all the smilies. Are you saying everything in the Bible is a metaphor? Yes or No? Did the Church Fathers call everything in the Bible or even Old Testament a metaphor??
 
Please, you said “Acts of His Will” not me.
Correct. And then, you attempted to demonstrate that ‘acts of His will’ meant ‘action’ and ‘decision making’. These characterizations of yours are the ones that I disagree with and am responding to. 😉
Also, I am not the one who said God feels it metaphorically.
Correct: you are not saying this, nor am I – it’s Aquinas who says this! 😉
40.png
BroomWagon:
Excuse me, I read the words: they are there to read! Period.
God, who is incorruptible and unchangeable and invisible, but who sees all things and changes them and alters them as He wills.
If you don’t agree, you don’t agree with the Church Fathers.
Oh, not at all! The Church Fathers rock – and I’m not disagreeing with Aristides! Rather, I’m disagreeing with what you think Aristides is saying! Big difference, there! 😉
 
Yes, we know all this and I don’t appreciate all the smilies. Are you saying everything in the Bible is a metaphor? Yes or No? Did the Church Fathers call everything in the Bible or even Old Testament a metaphor??
I am amused how you take something we say and then stretch it to an extreme. He didn’t say EVERYTHING in the bible is a metaphor. You either didn’t actually read what he said, you weren’t paying attention, or you misconstrued it.
 
"BroomWagon:
The Bible does straight ahead say in Genesis 6:6, “The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.” If you don’t agree with that, you don’t agree with the Bible, the Inspired word of God.
Are you saying everything in the Bible is a metaphor? Yes or No? Did the Church Fathers call everything in the Bible or even Old Testament a metaphor??
A-ha! Now we’re making progress! No, we’re not saying that everything in the Bile is a metaphor! (However, by implication, we’re saying that not everything in the Bible is literal on its face!)

So… it’s not that we “don’t agree with the Bible” – we just don’t agree with your interpretation of this verse in the Bible. Huge difference!
 
Yes, we know all this and I don’t appreciate all the smilies. Are you saying everything in the Bible is a metaphor? Yes or No? Did the Church Fathers call everything in the Bible or even Old Testament a metaphor??
😉 (I’m only teasing btw, I’ll stop with the smilies if it annoys you).

There are two answers to your questions:
  1. They regarded any of the passages imputing emotion to God (anger, sadness, grief) as being analogous and metaphorical, for the benefit of mankind rather than a description of God’s very nature because they believed in impassibility. So these yes, are metaphors.
  2. It is believed that scripture in general has two senses - literal and spritual - of which the latter can be subdivided into three senses.
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
The senses of Scripture
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church…
117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.
  1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
  1. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
  1. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86
118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:
 
I am amused how you take something we say and then stretch it to an extreme. He didn’t say EVERYTHING in the bible is a metaphor. You either didn’t actually read what he said, you weren’t paying attention, or you misconstrued it.
Or that “metaphor” is being used as a convenience to dismiss what is straight out of the Bible and can’t be interpreted any other way.
And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.
 
Even if one says this is a metaphor and anthromorphological, I don’t know if you can escape the basic meaning here.
**
And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.- Genesis 6:6**
It’s a metaphor, it/'s anthromorphological to describe God. Not sure if that dismisses emotions still.

Then what does it mean and how does it negate God not feeling grief or sorrow without saying St. Thomas Aquinas says God feels no sorrow, I think this could possibly be a simplistic way to analyze what he asserts.
 
Or that “metaphor” is being used as a convenience to dismiss what is straight out of the Bible and can’t be interpreted any other way.
By the **Fathers ** and Doctors of our Faith? They afterall are the ones who pioneered this reading of scripture and explicitly taught that passages attributing emotion to God are not to be taken on their face as literally suggesting that God is “grieved”, or “angry” etc., outwith the general 4 senses of scripture as a whole.

I highly doubt that they were using that approach “as a convenience to dismiss what is straight out of the Bible”.

It is the church, guided by the Holy Spirit, who interprets scripture - and these are her Fathers from the early centuries speaking, in consensus, that God is impassible and scripture is not to be read literally in these verses so as to suggest that he “grieves” or becomes “angry” etc.

I think its a safe bet that they know what they are talking about, no?
 
Actually, theologians throughout the ages have understood that the bible is not saying God has emotions; but since it is not an important thing to understand to keep the faith, not many people speak of it.

I am not saying that the Bible is false; all I am saying is that the language in it which attributes emotion to God is not literal.
If God “is” love instead of having love, then how could He change. If we are human, then how could we change into a turtle? Wouldn’t “having an attribute” and “being that attribute” be separate concepts?
 
Fr. Vincent Serpa on “Ask an Apologist”: Do prayers change God’s will?
“God does allow evil that a greater good may come of it. The writers of the Old Testament were writing for simple people. So they attribute human emotions to the Father that He doesn’t really have. He isn’t swayed by our behavior. But He does challenge us. And prayer IS powerful–because it changes US. Those who have been praying for your sister have been benefiting from their love for her and their own unselfishness. God has already determined what He will do for your sister. Her illness may will be for the benefit of your family and all those who are praying.”
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=10359674#post10359674
 
God does not experience sorrow or pain according to the Fathers and scholastics. He cannot “suffer”, that is part of what the doctrine of impassibility entails:
Hmm, that’s certainly what makes sense when you consider God’s immutability and triune love. However, doesn’t this imply that God, in the person of Jesus, did not feel pain on the cross?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top