Sure. But their view of those verses in the Psalms etc will inevitably be shaped by whatever Christian tradition they inhabit.
I'm not saying that everyone is going around consciously 'processing' this stuff all the time, but we inevitably pick up the prevailing vibe in whatever context we find ourselves.
At the risk of sounding too prescriptive, a Pentecostal or charismatic Christian, for instance, might respond more 'emotionally' to those verses and passages than someone in a more 'formal' setting.
If people do struggle with the idea of God's impassibility - and I can understand why that would be the case - then the Incarnation can help to balance that out.
As I've said upthread, impassibility doesn't mean that God is a robot or indifferent. Rather it means that he is eternally consistent in his love and grace.
There can be a comfort in the idea of God's impassibility.
It's been cited several times in the words of the hymn.
'Thou changest not, Thy compassions they fail not.'
That hymn speaks of God's impassibility and immutability and does so in comforting terms.
'As Thou hast been Thou forever wilt be.'
Surely there's a comfort in that?
I get the impression here that no matter how many times I state that there's a comfort, warmth and security in the idea that God does not change people respond as if I'm saying that God is like some kind of refrigerator circuit-board or impersonal 'force' when I am saying nothing of the kind.
I think a problem with this conversation is that impassible has a range of meanings, and also a specific, less commonly used theological meaning.
From Wiktionary
impassible (comparative more impassible, superlative most impassible)
1. Unable to feel emotion; impassive.
Synonyms: emotionless, unfeeling; see also Thesaurus:alexithymic
2. Incapable of suffering detriment or injury.
3. (chiefly theology) Unable to suffer, or feel pain.
In discussion it is very hard to separate the limited theological meaning (3) from the much more widely used general meaning (1).
While it may be an implication of God’s impassibility that he is “eternally consistent in his love and grace”, that is not what the word means.
Yes, I can see that, and it demonstrates how slippery language can be and how important context is.
Taken 'on its own' a term such as 'impassibility' would certainly imply an emotionless and unfeeling response or 'attitude' but understood within a 'narrower' theological framework it can imply that God is eternally consistent in his love and grace.
Why? Because that theological framework includes the Incarnation and the love and self-giving that involves - and much, much more besides.
That's why I keep saying that the Incarnation is key to all of this - and to everything else besides as it has cosmic significance.
Any vocabulary we use to make sense of these things is inevitably going to be limited and partial.
We don't fillet these things up and take them isolation, we look, as far as we can as limited human beings, at the 'whole'.
We approach these things through Christ. No-one has ever seen God but the Eternal Word has made him known.
Even then we 'see through a glass darkly' but one day we will see fully even as we are fully known.
I’m looking at the means by which the word became used in Christian theology to convey something about God the Father. I think @BroJames is right to point to the difficulties of separating the more general meaning from its specific use in Christian theology. And I’m sure @Gamma Gamaliel is right in pointing to the Incarnation as key to a proper (if limited!) understanding of what is meant.
I think all of us, regardless of academic training and qualifications, are to some extent theologians, but as @Nick Tamen observes, this particular area of understanding is very largely outside the understanding of most of us in the pews. Not surprisingly.
Still studying. Some of my prior confusion is lifting.
Comments
I'm not saying that everyone is going around consciously 'processing' this stuff all the time, but we inevitably pick up the prevailing vibe in whatever context we find ourselves.
At the risk of sounding too prescriptive, a Pentecostal or charismatic Christian, for instance, might respond more 'emotionally' to those verses and passages than someone in a more 'formal' setting.
If people do struggle with the idea of God's impassibility - and I can understand why that would be the case - then the Incarnation can help to balance that out.
As I've said upthread, impassibility doesn't mean that God is a robot or indifferent. Rather it means that he is eternally consistent in his love and grace.
There can be a comfort in the idea of God's impassibility.
It's been cited several times in the words of the hymn.
'Thou changest not, Thy compassions they fail not.'
That hymn speaks of God's impassibility and immutability and does so in comforting terms.
'As Thou hast been Thou forever wilt be.'
Surely there's a comfort in that?
I get the impression here that no matter how many times I state that there's a comfort, warmth and security in the idea that God does not change people respond as if I'm saying that God is like some kind of refrigerator circuit-board or impersonal 'force' when I am saying nothing of the kind.
From Wiktionary
In discussion it is very hard to separate the limited theological meaning (3) from the much more widely used general meaning (1).
While it may be an implication of God’s impassibility that he is “eternally consistent in his love and grace”, that is not what the word means.
Taken 'on its own' a term such as 'impassibility' would certainly imply an emotionless and unfeeling response or 'attitude' but understood within a 'narrower' theological framework it can imply that God is eternally consistent in his love and grace.
Why? Because that theological framework includes the Incarnation and the love and self-giving that involves - and much, much more besides.
That's why I keep saying that the Incarnation is key to all of this - and to everything else besides as it has cosmic significance.
Any vocabulary we use to make sense of these things is inevitably going to be limited and partial.
We don't fillet these things up and take them isolation, we look, as far as we can as limited human beings, at the 'whole'.
We approach these things through Christ. No-one has ever seen God but the Eternal Word has made him known.
Even then we 'see through a glass darkly' but one day we will see fully even as we are fully known.
I think all of us, regardless of academic training and qualifications, are to some extent theologians, but as @Nick Tamen observes, this particular area of understanding is very largely outside the understanding of most of us in the pews. Not surprisingly.
Still studying. Some of my prior confusion is lifting.