Below are some quotes that I shall comment on.
"Impassibility means God cannot suffer and is incapable of being acted upon by an external force."
This I would agree with though I would added two words as seen in the bold portion below below to this quote.
Impassibility means God cannot suffer and is incapable of being acted upon by an external
or internal force. The reason is if God changes anything about Himself be it from outside or inside He would be mutable.
"The early church held it as self-evident that the eternal God was unchangeable and impassible."
I agree with the above though no doubt some equivocation should be allowed in that I know many people who take no exceptions to the WCF without the knowledge that they really would take some exceptions if "pressed" into defining words in the confession, or by the original intent of the framers of the confession. I think the same would go for some of the early church.
"Irenaeus writing in the second century says, ―The [Gnostics] endow God with human affections
and emotions. However, if they had known the Scriptures, and had been taught by the truth, they
would have known beyond doubt that God is not like men. His thoughts are not like the thoughts
of men. For the Father of all is at a vast distance from those dispositions and passions that
operate among men."
The "distance" described is many times mistaken for quantitative distance and not qualitative difference. In other words, God is not more angry than man (quantity) but God the quality or essence of God's is different than man's anger. In other words, God is not or was ever an angry God as atributed to His esence.
"Origen was among the first theologians, but certainly not the last, who wanted to maintain that God was both impassible and impassioned. He wanted to defend that God is absolutely other and completely unlike the created world with its changing states. But at the same time, he wanted to do justice to the rich emotional language the Bible employs with reference to God. The God of the Church Fathers was impassible but not dispassionate."
Here we have Origen saying God is "absolutely other" and if I read earlier in a post someone said they would not be comfortable with using "wholly other" when describing God. I ask,was Origen not saying God is "wholly other" when he writes God is "absolutely other"?
Either God is impassible or passionate and there is no in between both polls. Now in stating this I think the point may have been made by Origen that God is indeed very involved or
appears to be passionate. In other words, maybe Origen is saying God is very active in working in the creation and thus "passionate" or active in His work. If so this would be a totally different definition of impassibility and I do not know enough about Origen to comment further than my speculation of exactly Origen meant when he says God is both "impassible but not dispassionate" and Kevin DeYoung no doubt knows much more than I about Origen so I will only speculate and I hope you take it as such as mere speculation of what he meant.
", the Westminster Confession of Faith states: "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;"
Indeed it says
lacks or has no passions and to think God, in His essence, has any or more passions is not what it says.
"The Confession has no problem saying God is, on the one hand, immutable and impassible
while, on the other hand, still calling him long-suffering and describing his just passionate hatred
for sin. This is not an indifferent God."
The words "long-suffering" in the confession is not saying God suffers (or has passions) in His essence but is to convey that to our eyes He is long-suffering. Also I have no problem thinking God is and always was against evil or sin, though of course Our Lord is outside of time and thus any disposition of hatred or anger should not be predicated to His divine essence.
"First, the context is defining what it means for God to be a ―most pure Spirit. Without body,
parts, or passions is meant to guard against the idea that God consisted of any material elements
or experiences bodily sensations."
The context in the confession is not linking lack of body parts "pure Spirit" with "parts". This is a common mistake. It is saying God does indeed lack material "pure Spirit" and that He is simple not composed of "parts" of love or truth or any other attribute.
Second, Ligon Duncan has an excellent article where he looks at Charles Hodge, A.A. Hodge,
William G.T. Shedd, and Robert Dabney and their approach to this line in the Confession. Dr.
Duncan concludes that all four believed in impassibility but also affirmed some kinds of feelings
or human-like emotions in God.
I am not familure with the men above on what they believed BUT if they believed the above they would be incorrect because God does not have feelings or human-like emotions. God, in His divine nature, is absolutely different and there is no one "like" Him.
'Third, there is a rich history in Christian thinking of distinguishing between passions and
affections. We‘ll come back to this in a moment because it is hugely significant in how we think
of emotions, but let me just sketch the difference briefly. Both Augustine and Aquinas
distinguished between passions, which were passive and involuntary, and affections, which were
active and voluntary. Affections were the consequence of right reason. Passions were disordered
and misguided, and therefore were often associated with sinful inclinations. I‘m not sure the
Westminster Confession was self-consciously standing in this tradition, but this certainly was the
tradition many theologians stood in. Passions did not refer to passionate feeling. They referred to
the sorts of emotions that sweep over you and threaten to control you. Clearly, God can have no
part in these passions."
This comes down to....Does God "control" His passions which the WCF denies He has? If so you have a God that is not immutable because if He "controls" them He is actively either changing, or holding back, something within Himself.
"Though unchangeable in himself, God lives the life of his creatures,
and is not indifferent to their changing activities."
God does not "live the lives of His creatures" He is in providential control of all creation via His inscrutable will and as such He is indeed not indifferent.
"I can‘t stress this enough. To be impassible is not to be passionless."
I can't stress this enough....To be impassible is to be passionless or as our WCF states specificaly "without passions".
"God is so dynamic, so active that he cannot change to be any more active or dynamic."
How can a divine being be "dynamic" and still be immutable. I think we have a change of what the definition of what dynamic means.
"Clearly, in one sense it is patently obvious that God has an emotional life. Scripture tell us God is grieved; he is angry; he rejoices; he is moved to pity, full of mercy, overflowing in love. So if
anger and joy and pity are emotions, then God has emotions."
This came before the part about the distinction in the human nature of Jesus and the context does say it is "patently obvious that God has an emotional life". This is an assumption that is not as "patently obvious" as stated.
"God‘s emotional life as nothing but a human way of talking about God (anthropopathism), the
price will be too high. We‘ll be left with a God that seems hallow and distant."
Contrary to what Kevin says the "emotional life" as described in scripture are indeed anthropopathisms. I know Calvin taught such and I think this would show there are many more who also taught such....
http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/figurative-descriptions-god-48694/
"He makes decisions based on his own immutable will and unchangeable purposes not on changing emotional states."
God does not "make" decisions even within Himself. To assume such has God changing and not immutable.
"When Vanhoozer calls divine emotions a concerned-based construal loaded with value, he‘s
using super-smart language to say God is interested in the world he created. And he‘s always
sizing up what is going on. Then he makes a value judgment of what‘s going on based on his
character and purposes. His construal of the situation results in anger or grief or joy or love
directed toward some object."
Nothing causes "interest" in God. He also does not "size up" and "make" a "value judgment" which results in Him being angry or grieved. We are to look at scripture to see "as if" He does these things but in no way think His essence is not blessed and happy within Himself.
"If we are equating emotions with the old sense of passions, then God doesn‘t have emotions. But if we are talking about affections, he does. God‘s emotions are cognitive affections involving his
construal of a situation.
Here we have the plain statement of God "involving his construal of a situation". No matter how one cuts it this is a statement that says God looks at a situation and acts or generates emotions based of the situation. Once again this is a God Who is not immutable.
"Most of what we call emotion in God is his evaluation of what is happening with his creation. So God has real emotions but they are always active. They are not forced upon him. They are not dictated by others. God‘s inner emotional life suffers no change because his emotions come from his objective, always true, value-based construals.As we talk about God‘s emotional life we must keep this in mind: his changing external emotions are but a reflection of his inner, unchanging nature and character. These emotional "changes" in God relate to the temporal changes in his creatures."
To have "active emotions" is to have a God with active change within His divine being. It would better to use the proper word "active affections".
"The only way to make sense of this is to understand that on one level God can regret and on another level it is impossible for him to have regret."
A better way to state the above would be as follows..........The only way to make sense of this is to understand that on one level God can be seen
as if He regrets and on another level it is impossible for him to have regret which is proper to His divine essence.
"God is sorry in this passage because Saul has changed, but this does not mean God has changed.
The change in God is a response to a change in someone else. In fact, God‘s ―change‖ is a
manifestation of his unchanging character. God‘s passion for the glory of his name, his passion
for righteousness and justice never change. But when the external world changes God‘s
relationship to that world also changes. So when Saul‘s behavior changed, God, immutable in
nature and purpose, chose to respond to Saul in a different way in order to be true to himself.
God changed his mind in order to not change his mind."
Either God changed His mind (nope) or God changed Saul. It appeared
as if God changed His mind to our eyes, but in reality God changed Saul according to His good and perfect will.
"God cannot be tempted, but we can affirm Jesus was tempted because what can be said about the Son of God in his existence as a man is not always true about God as God."
Statements like this chill me because I know many mistake Jesus having inner compulsions to sin that He resisted. I say this hoping Kevin does not believe such. For The Sermon On The Mount would condemn such teaching and I will give Kevin the judgment of charity in that I trust he does not teach such of Our Lord's humanity.
"This unchanging God – who is ontologically outside of our mess – is nevertheless intimately
involved in our mess, which makes his presence all the more meaningful."
He is indeed ontologically different or absolutly, wholly different.
"In the Triune Godhead there is a constant fullness of mercy, joy, and goodness to which we cannot add and from which we cannot subtract."
Amen.
