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.
From the summary of Jewish theologian Abraham Heschel we find these telling observations.
‘The most exalted idea applied to God is not infinite wisdom, infinite power, but infinite concern. Not self-sufficiency, but concern and involvement characterize His relation to the world”.
Well, exactly. That’s what I get from reading the OT. It’s not a picture of an impassible God. But what surprised me was why Heschel should be critiquing impassibility. Was it a Jewish understanding? The answer is Yes and No. Certainly medieval Jewish philosophers argued for impassibility. But the common rabbinical picture today is that the Hebrew Bible describes a God who shares in human history and suffering.
So how does the earlier picture come about? Here one of the key names is the Hellenistic Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria.
From this long article we can see that Philo was seeking to harmonise the Hebrew Bible with Greek philosophy and in the process made significant (but not total) use of allegorical interpretation.
In the section on theology we can see that Philo’s concepts of God include.
1. Transcendent, without physical or emotional qualities resembling human beings.
2. Self-existing and self-sufficient.
3. Immortal and unchanging
4. Free from sorrow, pain or other affections.
Where in the Hebrew Bible God is portrayed otherwise, Philo considered these to be anthropomorphisms.
A reasonable summary is that Philo saw God as very close to the Traditional picture of the impassible God the Father (which of course his writings pre-date). It’s not clear what the impact of his thinking was on Judaism at the time but the evidence I’ve looked at suggests it was either influential or supported prior views.
I am sure also that these were philosophical concepts that the early Greek Christian Fathers were aware of. The first article I linked suggested that the early Fathers were perhaps not critical enough of them in the light of the Incarnation. Personally I wouldn’t go that far. The early Fathers may well have considered the Greek philosophical insights as true. But it’s clear from that link why a number of Protestant theologians have criticised Divine impassibility as more influenced by Greek thought than biblical content.
I think it’s also clear that the immense suffering and death of millions in the two world wars, and particularly the Holocaust, have provided a stimulus for this re-examination. Jurgen Moltmann, an influential voice, was strongly influenced by his WW2 experiences.
In advance of completing my considerations about the central importance of the Incarnation, currently I stand with Heschel and the rabbis who agree with him. God shares in human history and suffering.
Also, following BroJames, I’m inclined to think that impassibility is not a very helpful term nor a very accurate term. God is gracious, compassionate, just, faithful, constant. Above all else, He is Love.
I have an old crush/situationship/friend who told me - very long ago - about how she was sitting in a tree playing a flute and nobody noticed. There's this cute girl, sitting in a tree, playing a flute. Nobody noticed. Nobody danced. They'd just walk by because none of them had the sense to look up.
I noticed.
We were already friends, we're still friends.
Maybe it's like that. God plays the tune, but it's on us to notice. And it's possible to not notice, at any given time. God will keep playing. What comes of that is a question of interaction.
Also, following BroJames, I’m inclined to think that impassibility is not a very helpful term nor a very accurate term. God is gracious, compassionate, just, faithful, constant. Above all else, He is Love.
I am told, but haven’t verified myself, that the most repeated description of God in the Hebrew Scriptures is that found in Exodus 34:6—“The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, and abounding in loyal love and faithfulness.”
I don't think you are raising the temperature at all, @Barnabas62, it's interesting stuff and thanks for sharing it.
I've heard of Philo of Alexandria but don't know much about him.so what you've shared is very welcome.
As for the influence of Greek philosophy on the early Church Fathers, well of course. That was the milieu they operated within. We could see that essentially Christianity is an amalgam of Hebraic and Hellenistic thought.
I'd certainly accept that as being the case - on a both/and level of course. 😉
But I'd also say that that's not 'all' it is.
I don't have any issue with the Hebraic emphasis on God's concern and involvement with the world as you've outlined in the Heschel quote, not that I've read much Jewish theology other than a commentary on the Psalms.
But neither do I see that as incompatible with the idea of divine impassibility as expressed by the Fathers, insofar as I understand their position that is.
I don't see these concepts as mutually exclusive. I've alluded to dichotomising a few times in this thread.
It's interesting that some rabbinic theologians went down a more divine 'impassibility' route and others didn't but perhaps hardly surprising.
I was also interested to read @Nick Tamen's comment on Exodus 34:6.
Again, I don't see that as incompatible with Patristic understandings either.
On the Incarnational angle - which is really the only one we can take this side of the Incarnation, life, death and resurrection of Christ - I'm wondering about the 'Theophanies' in the Hebrew scriptures. What light do they shed on this?
A great deal I submit.
We have the 'Lamb slain from before the beginning of the world.'
There are foretastes and anticipation of that throughout the Old Testament, if interpreted in a Christian way of course.
Besides, without trying to 'upstage' @BroJames I've been banging on about God being Love above all else and constant, faithful and true all along and even quoting Protestant hymns with approval in order to reinforce that point. And George Herbert. And Gerard Manley Hopkins and the Westminster Confession ...
I did start a post containing more abstract considerations but after reading @Lamb Chopped OP on the new thread I decided not to. Which may come as a relief to you and others. As well as me!
Instead, I’ll confine myself to repeating the last two paragraphs of my post to @Lamb Chopped .
I have some sympathy with Martin Luther’s suspicion of abstract metaphysical conceptions of God and his preference for looking at how God has been revealed, concretely, in the incarnation, life, death and resurrection of Jesus.
Viewed against that understanding, and given the clear passibility of Jesus, his completely involved human engagement with others, I am sure that God has feelings. He is love. He loves us. And His perfect love casts out fear.
No doubt I’ll return to abstract metaphysical speculations but that’ll do for now!
I've replied to some of your points on the thread @Lamb Chopped has started.
We could end up with parallel threads saying the same things so I'll confine responses to issues like 'abstract metaphysical speculations' to that thread rather than this one.
Suffice to say here that however we understand 'synergia' it's the Incarnation that reconciles and 'makes sense' of all of this.
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.
From this link supplied earlier I was especially intrigued by the reconsideration of the Old Testament prophets.
From the summary of Jewish theologian Abraham Heschel we find these telling observations.
‘The most exalted idea applied to God is not infinite wisdom, infinite power, but infinite concern. Not self-sufficiency, but concern and involvement characterize His relation to the world”.
Well, exactly. That’s what I get from reading the OT. It’s not a picture of an impassible God. But what surprised me was why Heschel should be critiquing impassibility. Was it a Jewish understanding? The answer is Yes and No. Certainly medieval Jewish philosophers argued for impassibility. But the common rabbinical picture today is that the Hebrew Bible describes a God who shares in human history and suffering.
So how does the earlier picture come about? Here one of the key names is the Hellenistic Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria.
From this long article we can see that Philo was seeking to harmonise the Hebrew Bible with Greek philosophy and in the process made significant (but not total) use of allegorical interpretation.
In the section on theology we can see that Philo’s concepts of God include.
1. Transcendent, without physical or emotional qualities resembling human beings.
2. Self-existing and self-sufficient.
3. Immortal and unchanging
4. Free from sorrow, pain or other affections.
Where in the Hebrew Bible God is portrayed otherwise, Philo considered these to be anthropomorphisms.
A reasonable summary is that Philo saw God as very close to the Traditional picture of the impassible God the Father (which of course his writings pre-date). It’s not clear what the impact of his thinking was on Judaism at the time but the evidence I’ve looked at suggests it was either influential or supported prior views.
I am sure also that these were philosophical concepts that the early Greek Christian Fathers were aware of. The first article I linked suggested that the early Fathers were perhaps not critical enough of them in the light of the Incarnation. Personally I wouldn’t go that far. The early Fathers may well have considered the Greek philosophical insights as true. But it’s clear from that link why a number of Protestant theologians have criticised Divine impassibility as more influenced by Greek thought than biblical content.
I think it’s also clear that the immense suffering and death of millions in the two world wars, and particularly the Holocaust, have provided a stimulus for this re-examination. Jurgen Moltmann, an influential voice, was strongly influenced by his WW2 experiences.
In advance of completing my considerations about the central importance of the Incarnation, currently I stand with Heschel and the rabbis who agree with him. God shares in human history and suffering.
Also, following BroJames, I’m inclined to think that impassibility is not a very helpful term nor a very accurate term. God is gracious, compassionate, just, faithful, constant. Above all else, He is Love.
I noticed.
We were already friends, we're still friends.
Maybe it's like that. God plays the tune, but it's on us to notice. And it's possible to not notice, at any given time. God will keep playing. What comes of that is a question of interaction.
I've heard of Philo of Alexandria but don't know much about him.so what you've shared is very welcome.
As for the influence of Greek philosophy on the early Church Fathers, well of course. That was the milieu they operated within. We could see that essentially Christianity is an amalgam of Hebraic and Hellenistic thought.
I'd certainly accept that as being the case - on a both/and level of course. 😉
But I'd also say that that's not 'all' it is.
I don't have any issue with the Hebraic emphasis on God's concern and involvement with the world as you've outlined in the Heschel quote, not that I've read much Jewish theology other than a commentary on the Psalms.
But neither do I see that as incompatible with the idea of divine impassibility as expressed by the Fathers, insofar as I understand their position that is.
I don't see these concepts as mutually exclusive. I've alluded to dichotomising a few times in this thread.
It's interesting that some rabbinic theologians went down a more divine 'impassibility' route and others didn't but perhaps hardly surprising.
I was also interested to read @Nick Tamen's comment on Exodus 34:6.
Again, I don't see that as incompatible with Patristic understandings either.
On the Incarnational angle - which is really the only one we can take this side of the Incarnation, life, death and resurrection of Christ - I'm wondering about the 'Theophanies' in the Hebrew scriptures. What light do they shed on this?
A great deal I submit.
We have the 'Lamb slain from before the beginning of the world.'
There are foretastes and anticipation of that throughout the Old Testament, if interpreted in a Christian way of course.
Besides, without trying to 'upstage' @BroJames I've been banging on about God being Love above all else and constant, faithful and true all along and even quoting Protestant hymns with approval in order to reinforce that point. And George Herbert. And Gerard Manley Hopkins and the Westminster Confession ...
Re the Incarnation
I did start a post containing more abstract considerations but after reading @Lamb Chopped OP on the new thread I decided not to. Which may come as a relief to you and others. As well as me!
Instead, I’ll confine myself to repeating the last two paragraphs of my post to @Lamb Chopped .
No doubt I’ll return to abstract metaphysical speculations but that’ll do for now!
We could end up with parallel threads saying the same things so I'll confine responses to issues like 'abstract metaphysical speculations' to that thread rather than this one.
Suffice to say here that however we understand 'synergia' it's the Incarnation that reconciles and 'makes sense' of all of this.