Divine Impassibility

The Christ the Center panel meets with Rev. Dr. James Dolezal to discuss the much maligned doctrine of divine impassibility. Beginning with a look at Westminster Confession of Faith 2.1, that "There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions..." the panel looks at the biblical basis and importance of understanding, affirming, and developing a proper use of this doctrine that God does not have passions. Often taken to be a denial of, for instance, God's love, it is shown that the truth is to the contrary. As simple and as pure act, God is love in the fullest sense without fluctuation or change which is the human lot. This discussion offers much food for thought.
reformedforum.org/ctc237

[@TheExastrologer]

Dr. Dolezal is great. I've read "God Without Parts" (it was quite a challenge to read!) and "All That Is In God" which is one of my favorite books. I have also listened to several online talks by Dr. Dolezal on Divine Simplicity and Impassiblity - there are several done by the Founders Ministry.

[@kirstenalyssa9801]

Dolezal is my theology teacher and I’m literally writing a paper on this topic for his class lol

[@BrandonCorley109]

Would you be able to help answer some of my questions if you're willing? I've been reading a lot about impassibility and i've been reading and re-reading Dolezal's book, but it's still hard for me to understand Like, if God is pure act so He's always joyful or always wrathful, can we say he is wrathful with sinners or pleased with believers? Can there be an object that his affections are directed towards? Honestly, I just want to know if I can say that He loves me specifically and is pleased by me obeying Him, or if that's not accurate

[@kirstenalyssa9801]

@@BrandonCorley109 From my understanding of theology, we can absolutely be assured of His joy in knowing His children and observing our love for Him because this often encourages believers in their faith, but we also need to understand that this language is a way of anthropomorphizing God. In so many ways, He is unfathomable to us, His emotional state is perfectly consistent, and His pleasure in seeing our relationship with Him on this side of heaven grow is real, and yet we must remember that in all things, we are simply creatures and cannot truly define these things. God is far too great, and theology is designed to embody this simplicity in a way that also captures its unknowability. I know this is a really complicated question and doctrine, and my goal was to use open language, but if you have any other questions, let me know! I love discussing theology! And please remember that if you seek God with all of your heart while learning theology, the Lord will approach your inability to understand sometimes with grace. He is proud of you!

[@oscarpatino8134]

Did you finish your paper?

[@arturogomez1636]

How deep is this doctrine, how amazing an in Awe that God would love us with an everlasting LOVE Jeremiah 31:3 never changing Love for it never lowing never decrease never exhaust, But in its simplicity and purity and Holiness He Loved us it its purist form. I'm in Awe what are the deep of This Mighty God we have? Ephesians 3:18 may this humble us and cause us to come to Him in Holy Reverence may we break out with loud Praises to the Immutable Impassibility LORD GOD and KING we have and that By His pleasure caused us to know Him for the praise of His Glory.

[@classicchristianliterature]

This is great. I am concerned over the negative comments. It confirms what the speakers in this video were saying about the tendency of Christians to think that something is "wrong if it's complicated." My advice is this - "grow up" (Eph 4:15) and "be no more children" (Eph 4:14). [Eph 4:13-15 ] 13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: 14 That we [henceforth] be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, [and] cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; 15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, [even] Christ:

[@Nomosowicz]

"Do you have an epistemology? "I don't *know*" @1:03:00 James evidently wasn't quick enough to catch the joke.

[@samuelhaupt3217]

Neither did I, I see now what he did there

[@Qhaon]

Wow, this was great!

[@dbodde]

Wow, fantastic!

[@lalumierehuguenote]

I wish you could re invite him ! Could that be possible ?

[@davidcoleman5860]

I get what you're saying about creation being God's eternal act whereas we perceive it in time, but does that not make the universe _effectively_ eternal as well? If the act of creation (and conservation) is eternal, then the universe is conditionally eternal as well, correct?

[@unexpectedTrajectory]

Regarding the universal being conditionally eternal in consequence of creation as an eternal act in God - all of God's acts are eternal, because He is eternal (outside of time.) He stands in an a-temporal relation to creation as creator. The universe is no more eternal than the burning bush, or the parting of the Red Sea. From our perspective, those events are both in the past, no longer taking place, but God stands in an a-temporal relation to those events. As an analogy, His relation to time is precisely the same as his relation to space (which I think we have an easier time thinking about.) It is helpful, too, to distinguish between everlasting (e.g. we came into existence at a point in time and will continue to exist forever in the resurrection co-extensive with time) and eternal (outside of/transcending time, as only God does.) Hope this is helpful at least as food for thought. There is a Van Til group from Reformed Forum that discusses God's relationship with time, as well as other lectures from Dr. Dolezal

[@apologiaguy4141]

How about Reformed guys like John Piper? He believes that God has immutable passions, right?

[@Querymonger]

Piper is not reformed, just Calvinistic.

[@clintmmartin]

ApologiaGuy Piper is not Reformed. He is "Calvinistic"; because he doesn't hold to a Reformed Baptist Confession or any other historic Reformed confession. He would more accurately be called a Sovereign grace Baptist.

[@chadreddick5528]

Piper just swung underneath Jonathan Edwards on the" end for which God created the world"

[@scottautry1775]

I do not find and have not found the attribute of divine immobility in Holy Scripture. I do find a God who is immutably perichoretic.

[@mac2brown]

Interesting...but where does God say this in the bible?

[@bobpolo2964]

It's an interpretation

[@chadreddick5528]

Acts 17:25 "as though He needed anything", together with the context,,

[@erroldintong615]

Why do smart guys tend to be bald? 🤔😂

[@bradspitt3896]

His training was too intense and his body couldn't handle the intellectual stress.

[@andrewclover1462]

Our brains push the hair out by the roots. ;)

[@usedtobeifb]

Removing the Tares of Thomism (or Reforming the Doctrine of God) Lecture 2: Theological Principles from Van Til’s Common Grace drbobgonzales.com/2014/11/05/removing-the-tares-of-thomism-or-reforming-the-doctrine-of-god/

[@fletchernorwood445]

⚠️🚨 WORD SALAD ALERT!!🚨⚠️😁 Great teaching though 😊🙌🏾🙌🏾

[@TruthBeTold7]

The Suffering of the Impassible God: The Dialectics of Patristic Thought, by Paul L. Gavrilyuk.

[@sammig.8286]

This is too philosophical for me. What does the Bible say?

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

The Bible isn’t read in isolation, but through lenses and background assumptions and axioms.

[@felixquintana5784]

This Greek philosophers view of God is incompatible with scriptures. Calvinism is simply incoherent

[@NathanielByers]

Dolezal is one of my college profs. Hard to find a guy I disagree with more, since I'm an Arminian who believes in a passionate God.

[@ParaSniper2504]

LOL!

[@josiah.hasbrouck]

fancy seeing you hear

[@bestpossibleworld2091]

It is interesting to me that an Arminian would have a problem with this classic doctrine. Thomists hold that Christians can "lose" their salvation, yet, they are strong advocates of a God that is impassable.

[@NathanielByers]

@@josiah.hasbrouck I’ve mellowed in 5 years, but still not to Dolezals level of reformed. Firmly Molinist at this point.

[@NathanielByers]

@@bestpossibleworld2091 I do not believe that one can lose their salvation on account of their works. I would say that I believe that people can reject and forsake a gospel that they once believed/held to. Essentially, I believe that a “loss of salvation” is no accidental occurrence. It is a deliberate choice by people who once knew the truth, to turn their back on God.

[@colleengodwin7092]

False!

[@bobpolo2964]

What are you referring to?

[@melindalemmon2149]

In the extremus

[@melindalemmon2149]

Will certainly not be able to listen long to this. This is not God.

[@bobpolo2964]

What do you mean?