On God's Impassability

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hobbes42
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Hobbes42

Guest
So I was listening to Catholic Answers radio I believe it was, and one of the hosts stated that God the Father cannot be angry with humanity or feel any kind of emotion because He is eternal and cannot change and that any anger we experience, in Holy Scripture for example, is simply due to anthropomorphization because supposedly, God never is angry or sorrowful because He doesn’t have a physical brain.

It’s my understanding that God isn’t bound by the physical experience of emotion, but He is pleased with Christ Jesus, and His Church! I don’t think it’s right in any way to write off God’s Just wrath at our sinfulness as mere “an anthropomorphization”.

Anyway, this just stuck in my craw, just read through the Catechism today and it seemed to lean toward a loving God who responds to the faith, and sin, of His People. What’s correct here?
 
Hmm one of the psalms says the Lord is slow to anger.

There are quite a few conversations between God and His chosen people in the Old Testament about anger.
 
Both are correct. There are emotional, sensitive passions, which God does not have, but He exists in a perpetual bliss and joy, in a sense, in His own goodness (as a Trinity) and the goodness of His creation. God’s disposition towards us at any moment is related to our own motion in regards to Him.

Aquinas’ explanation may help: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1020.htm
 
Last edited:
Exactly! The Church Teaches that our God is a personal and loving God. How is this equivalent to impassable?
 
Indeed.

Over emphasizing God’s unchanging nature in this way seems kind of Deistic. “He just sets out the plan and lets it run”.

I prefer the image of the Father from the Parable of the Prodigal Son. Literally all of Salvation History is filled with God reacting in Anger to grievous sin, or pouring out His Infinite Mercy. None of this uncaring Watchmaker type stuff. 😁
 
Last edited:
W. Norris Clarke’s book The One and the Many ties the two concepts together very well. It’s a misconception to view the classical depiction of God as distant, uncaring, and uninvolved.

But to be Catholic doesn’t mean one has to be a philosopher or an apologist, and one can focus on what’s spiritually helpful.
 
De_Maria said:
Exactly! The Church Teaches that our God is a personal and loving God. How is this equivalent to impassable?
Click to expand...
Not sure exactly what you’re asking. ‘Impassibility’ means that God cannot suffer, and that He doesn’t have ‘passions’ (i.e., human emotions, which we have by virtue of our human nature.

So, ‘impassibility’ just means “God can’t suffer, and He’s not human.” 🤷‍♂️
 
Which classical depiction in particular do you speak of?

Under the Deist view, their view of God is very, very cold. I’d argue that a non-personal God who never reacts to the love or faith of His Servants is very similar to the Great Watchmaker concept.

“St. Irenaeus of Lyons repeatedly speaks of this divine pedagogy using the image of God and man becoming accustomed to one another: the Word of God dwelt in man and became the Son of man in order to accustom man to perceive God and to accustom God to dwell in man, according to the Father’s pleasure.5” Cat. 1 I 53.

Seems pretty clear, the Father takes pleasure in drawing us to Him.
I’m not arguing that God has passions, but He does have emotions (two different things).
 
Hobbes42 said:
Which classical depiction in particular do you speak of?

Under the Deist view, their view of God is very, very cold. I’d argue that a non-personal God who never reacts to the love or faith of His Servants is very similar to the Great Watchmaker concept.

“St. Irenaeus of Lyons repeatedly speaks of this divine pedagogy using the image of God and man becoming accustomed to one another: the Word of God dwelt in man and became the Son of man in order to accustom man to perceive God and to accustom God to dwell in man, according to the Father’s pleasure.5” Cat. 1 I 53.

Seems pretty clear, the Father takes pleasure in drawing us to Him.
I’m not arguing that God has passions, but He does have emotions (two different things).
Click to expand...
By classical, I’m referring to Aquinas and God as the immutable, impassible, unmoved mover.

From a philosophical standpoint, I’m wary of applying the word “emotion” to God, as it connotes to me some type of sensitive appetite. Maybe someone more familiar with a Thomist’s description can confirm if my wariness is right. But anyway, God does love and is joyful in a manner similar to a movement of the will and is always engaged with His creation.
 
Last edited:
Hobbes42 said:
Which classical depiction in particular do you speak of?

Under the Deist view, their view of God is very, very cold. I’d argue that a non-personal God who never reacts to the love or faith of His Servants is very similar to the Great Watchmaker concept.

“St. Irenaeus of Lyons repeatedly speaks of this divine pedagogy using the image of God and man becoming accustomed to one another: the Word of God dwelt in man and became the Son of man in order to accustom man to perceive God and to accustom God to dwell in man, according to the Father’s pleasure.5” Cat. 1 I 53.

Seems pretty clear, the Father takes pleasure in drawing us to Him.
I’m not arguing that God has passions, but He does have emotions (two different things).
Click to expand...
But actually, no, God in fact does not have emotions either, be they passions or feelings like we do. God’s impassability AND immutability are absolutes, and de fide dogmas of the faith.

We use expressions such as God’s wrath and pleasure because of our own human limitations. We exist in a temporal state of movement and emotion, so we need ways of expressing how God relates to us in human terms. We refer to God’s wrath and God’s pleasure because that’s the way it appears to us.

But in truth, God cannot have emotions because emotion is a movement, a change. God’s immutability precludes this completely, as it is impossible to have any movement or change in God. God’s immutability is absolute.
 
So… you’re arguing that God cannot have love, or joy? These are simply words we use to express His relation to us then? Since God is immutable He cannot love? I’m certain that in fact He does and that these are dogmas of the faith.
 
A movement of the will is quite what I’m getting at. God obviously doesn’t feel a rush of anger and indignation as we do due to say, a trip, or an insult but He can express His Will in anger, or in love.
 
Yes, though I would say that anger (in a human sense) follows from love. What is primary is our attachment to something, and anger follows from seeing that something harmed or frustrated in some way. Now, I would not say that God feels anger in the sensitive way we do, nor that He is anger the way we would say He is love. But acting in love and for a good, what we experience from God can seem as anger or wrath. That is, love is primary, and the appearance of anger is accidental, if that makes sense.

EDIT: I might be trying to go “too deep” here.
 
Last edited:
Hobbes42 said:
So… you’re arguing that God cannot have love, or joy? These are simply words we use to express His relation to us then? Since God is immutable He cannot love? I’m certain that in fact He does and that these are dogmas of the faith.
Click to expand...
Love for God is is very nature; it’s not an emotion as we perceive it. Even for us men, love in its highest form is an act of the will, but even then, it is a movement. This is not possible for God. Love being what God himself is, is subject to his immutability.

Joy is something given by God. In him do we find our joy, but again: God is absolutely immutable. Joy is for us insofar as we have our life in God, so in that sense, God is also joy itself, rather than joy being something he possesses.
 
That makes sense. So following from that premise then, God acts in anger as an expression of love? If I’m reading you right.
 
But God can express His Nature in His love for us yes? He can act without changing.

Also, side note, I’m not a huge Thomist so I’m digging through the Catechism, where can I find Church teachings on immutability and definitions thereof?
 
Hobbes42 said:
Also, side note, I’m not a huge Thomist so I’m digging through the Catechism, where can I find Church teachings on immutability and definitions thereof?
Click to expand...
CCC 202 Jesus himself affirms that God is “the one Lord” whom you must love “with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength”.6 At the same time Jesus gives us to understand that he himself is “the Lord”.7 To confess that Jesus is Lord is distinctive of Christian faith. This is not contrary to belief in the One God. Nor does believing in the Holy Spirit as “Lord and giver of life” introduce any division into the One God:

We firmly believe and confess without reservation that there is only one true God, eternal infinite (immensus) and **unchangeable**, incomprehensible, almighty and ineffable, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; three persons indeed, but one essence, substance or nature entirely simple.8

CCC 2086 "The first commandment embraces faith, hope, and charity. When we say ‘God’ we confess a constant, unchangeable being, always the same, faithful and just, without any evil. It follows that we must necessarily accept his words and have complete faith in him and acknowledge his authority. He is almighty, merciful, and infinitely beneficent. Who could not place all hope in him? Who could not love him when contemplating the treasures of goodness and love he has poured out on us? Hence the formula God employs in the Scripture at the beginning and end of his commandments: ‘I am the LORD.’"8
Click to expand...
Some resources:

Dictionary : IMMUTABILITY OF GOD

IMMUTABILITY OF GOD Absolute changelessness. That is mutable which goes from one condition to another. In consequence of its finite nature, every creature is mutable. God is unchangeable because he is infinite. Mutability implies potentiality, composition, and imperfection, and is therefore not...
www.catholicculture.org www.catholicculture.org

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm#IIC

www.catholic.com

Pointless Prayer or Gracious God?

As many saints have testified, and many Christians affirm, the life of prayer is not a piece of cake. It’s hard work. It requires great effort to keep a prayer...
www.catholic.com www.catholic.com
 
Hobbes42 said:
But God can express His Nature in His love for us yes? He can act without changing.

Also, side note, I’m not a huge Thomist so I’m digging through the Catechism, where can I find Church teachings on immutability and definitions thereof?
Click to expand...
It’s also just not that he “can” act, as in performing, but the theological phrase is that God is Pure Act. So again, we are touching upon God’s nature and the mystery of existence itself. It’s consistent with his immutability.
 
Ahhhhh, it’s all clicking now. Thank you so much for explaining it so well!
 
Porthos and Wes explained their point with due excellent form. I was entirely wrong and I concede the field 😁
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top