Kevin DeYoung Defends Divine Impassibility
“In simplest terms, divine impassibility means that God does not suffer…. God cannot be acted upon from without, neither can His inner state change for better or for worse.” - Kevin DeYoung
- 301 views
It takes even KD less than two minutes to start using paradoxical language on this topic. The problem is that we lack categories for what it is that God experiences and “feels.” We might be better off just leaving it an open question, though the venerable Westminster Confession does not.
Yes, I know… if we tune our language finely enough we can seem to eliminate paradox/contradiction from what we’re saying on this. (And KD succeeds in doing this for several minutes.) The problem is that the more microscopic we get, the less confident a lot of us are that we aren’t simply talking in circles and qualifying away everything we were trying to say. (And when KD gets to the end, it seems like we’re deep into paradox again.)
So… I’m skeptical that we can consistently make sense on this topic. We have to affirm what Scripture clearly reveals. And we can’t set aside necessary inferences either. But making those two things get along fully—I’m skeptical that it can be done. (But I don’t blame anyone for trying. Kudos for the courage!)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
But the common defense of Divine Impassibility is: God cannot change; therefore you can't have a situation that [I]makes[/I] Him sad, angry, happy, etc.
I think that's dumb because you can maintain God's unchanging nature without denying that He has different opinions and affections to different things.
There are things that the Lord hates. And there are things the Lord loves. That's clear in the Word. And in His perfection, He feels the appropriate one at each appropriate time.
Part of the problem for us is the time part. Given that God created time and doesn’t exist “within” it like we do, it’s hard to say what “change” and “not change” even mean in reference to Him. There are lots of places in Scripture where God acts seemingly within time in a way that certainly seems to be “change.”
Take the incarnation, for example!
Yet He directly affirms that He does not change.
Again, I think we’re supposed to live without having all the truths fully harmonized/resolved to our understanding. I know that rankles some theologians. I don’t blame them. It’s their calling to figure out answers based on what is revealed. But… there is such a thing as going to far and creating an answer where we are supposed to just live with our questions.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
But… there is such a thing as going to far and creating an answer where we are supposed to just live with our questions.
I fear there has been a lot of false doctrine promoted simply because someone felt they had to have an answer and had to "prove" they were smart enough to find the "answer." We had a Bible study last night and were able to "prove" why there is still debate about who Melchizedek is. The more we studied and analyzed the text, the more we understood the perspectives of both sides. We left the Bible study without a definite answer about Melchizedek, but with an understanding that regardless of who he was- what we do know about him magnifies the glory of Jesus Christ.
Featured Resource
Discussion