Friday, February 01, 2008

Impassibility: Does God suffer?


Bavaria, Hohenschwangau Castle (photo from trekearth.com)

The section from the link below offers interesting advice and relates to why I blog on related PhD material. In my case, on thekingpin68, the material is somewhat altered from what will be presented to Wales. A fear of Universities forbidding publication of material related to theses seems likely unwarranted and is not a good reason to avoid posting, for if one blogs on similar material, one can prove originality and the date published. Blogging on a topic before PhD publication can likely only help the process and I am already publicly sharing the concepts with the questionnaire.

http://rdrop.com/~paulmck/personal/PartTimePhDAdvice.html

Publish as You Go

You must be the first person to cover your topic, otherwise, your work does not qualify as a Ph.D. There are more people pursuing doctorates than there have been at any time in the past, and there is some truth to the old adage that great minds think alike. I have talked to a number of people who worked hard on their dissertation, only to find that someone else beat them to the punch, sometimes by a matter of months. And they were working on it full time!
If you are doing your doctorate part time, you will take longer to get it done. Therefore, you are more likely to be beaten to the punch. But if you publish your findings in an appropriate forum as you go, you have "laid your claim" to that portion of your work before completing work on your dissertation. Once you have published part of your work in a suitable forum, no one can take that part of your work away from you.

University technical reports are one useful tool, as are the relevant conferences and journals, either print or electronic. But check with your committee before going the electronic-publication route, as not all universities recognize electronic publication. In fact, I have heard rumors of universities forbidding publication prior to completion of the dissertation. So make sure that your committee fully supports "publish as you go".

Impassibility: Does God suffer?

Brian Davies explains that impassibility is the traditional understanding that God, the divine nature, cannot experience pain or suffering. Davies believes it is incorrect to assume that God’s impassibility should mean that the creator is indifferent or unconcerned about his creation. Davies (1999: 288). For Millard Erickson, the idea of God’s divine nature as impassible is based upon the influence of ancient Greek thought rather than Scripture. Erickson points out that with the incarnation of Christ, God the Son did experience human suffering. He possessed a human nature that did suffer in life and in death, even though his divine nature coexisted with his human one. Erickson (1994: 737). Kenneth Surin writes that God is considered by some within traditional Christian theology to be unable to experience pain or sorrow. However, others concede that concluding God is impassible is a questionable view within traditional thought. Surin (1982: 97). It seems reasonable God can be both all-powerful and feel negative emotions, but it should be concluded suffering does not alter his divine attributes. Since God is infinite and considered immutable, it is impossible for him to suffer in the exact way that human beings do. Thiessen describes the immutability of God as meaning his divine nature, attributes, consciousness, and will, cannot change. Thiessen (1956: 127). Erickson explains that God does not grow or develop, as there are no variations in his nature at different points within his existence. Erickson (1994: 274). R.C. Sproul and Robert Wolgemuth deduce that as God is eternal he has no beginning or no end. Sproul and Wolgemuth (2000: 2). As God is understood to be eternal and beyond time without a progression in nature, his infinite being would make a change in nature and character impossible.

In contrast, David A Pailin explains that within some process theology approaches, God’s existence may be viewed as absolute, necessary and unchanging. However, God’s character can change and is determined through interaction with his creation. Pailin postulates that God’s character can change, as he loves his creatures. Pailin (1999: 469). Process theology according to Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling is a twentieth-century view based on the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead that presents a God that is involved in the continual process of world through two natures. God has a transcendent nature which contains God’s perfect character and the consequent immanent nature by which God is part of the changing cosmic process. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 95-96).

I see no need to adopt process theology, as God fully understands evil and suffering. In a divine way that cannot be completely humanly understood, God experiences evil and suffering as the infinite, omnipotent God in spiritual nature, and as the God-man, Jesus Christ. Christ suffered as a human being, and in particular died for the sins of persons, and to give his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45). God does not have to progress or continue a process to understand anything, but made himself particularly relatable to humanity through a process in which Christ became a human being and completed the atoning and resurrection work. God therefore relates to suffering and provides a remedy for evil and suffering which Scripture promises will be culminated at the end of this age.

DAVIES, BRIAN (1999) ‘Impassibility’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, p. 288. Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI AND CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.

PAILIN, DAVID A. (1999) ‘Process Theology’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

SPROUL, R.C., AND ROBERT WOLGEMUTH (2000) What’s In the Bible, Word Publishing, Nashville.

THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2008/02/stupid-questions.html

10 comments:

  1. I am quite sure you have covered all the bases already, but nevertheless, John Frame's book, The Doctrine of God has a very helpful section on impassibility.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for the book information and Facebook connect, Jake. I have heard of Frame, but his work has not come up much within the subject of theodicy. I have cited the following within my PhD thesis.

    FRAME, JOHN M. (1999) ‘The Bible on the Problem of Evil: Insights from Romans 3:1-8,21-26; 5:1-5; 8:28-39’, IIIM Magazine Online, Volume 1, Number 33, October 11 to October 17, Fern Park, Florida, Third Millennium.
    Third Millennium

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi Russ,

    God suffered as Christ, as we know, but I don't believe God as Spirit can suffer, in the way we understand that word. He can understand and empathise with our sufferings, and particuarly through the sufferings of Christ, and is no way unconcerned with us or His creation as a whole, I believe. I don't believe God has negative emotions, as God is perfect. Negative emotions don't go with perfection ISTM.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks, Deejay.

    I reason that God can within a creation that is corrupted by the problem of evil, experience negative emotions, but this will never lead to sin. Anger in human beings can lead to sin, but anger will not cause God to do wrong. God would not experience either positive or negative emotions in the same way persons would, as he would maintain perfect objectivity and morality.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Although we cannot always understand pain and suffering, God does. His understanding is limitless and eternal, therefore I don't believe God changes (Mal.3:6)God does not need to grow as we do. He is complete and fully good and all knowing. God fully understands pain and suffering and good and evil.
    -Pious Philosopher-

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks.

    I see your time at CBC has paid off somewhat.

    Russ:)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Quick note:

    I am on CPAP now, starting tonight. I am using a trial version for a month and then shall purchase a new machine.

    Also, I am presently listening to Hank Hanegraaff from today's Bible Answer Man, on-line. I have listened to the show occasionally since 1987, and I have learned from Walter Martin and Hank Hanegraaff. I have not agreed with Hank's non-Calvinistic stands on free will and thought James White did very well in a debate with him and another fellow trying to assist Hank. I think Hank and his helper were beaten over the head by White's Bible.;) Today, Hank was asked a question on free will in regard to Ephesians 1 and actually mentioned the concept of compatibilism in regard to the Calvinistic view. I think he has continued with his research as I used to listen to him regularly a few years ago and he never mentioned the term. Bravo.

    I also found this helpful page:

    Canon

    Apologetics Toolkit

    DEVELOPMENT OF THE BIBLICAL CANON
    adapted from materials of Professor Paul Hahn of the University of St. Thomas, Houston, Texas

    Development of the Old Testament Canon
    1000-50 BC:
    The Old Testament (hereafter "OT") books are written.
    C. 200 BC:
    Rabbis translate the OT from Hebrew to Greek, a translation called the "Septuagint" (abbreviation: "LXX"). The LXX ultimately includes 46 books.
    AD 30-100:
    Christians use the LXX as their scriptures. This upsets the Jews.
    C. AD 100:
    So Jewish rabbis meet at the Council of Jamniah and decide to include in their canon only 39 books, since only these can be found in Hebrew.
    C. AD 400:
    Jerome translates the Bible from Hebrew and Greek into Latin (called the "Vulgate"). He knows that the Jews have only 39 books, and he wants to limit the OT to these; the 7 he would leave out (Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach [or "Ecclesiasticus"], and Baruch--he calls "apocrypha," that is, "hidden books." But Pope Damasus wants all 46 traditionally-used books included in the OT, so the Vulgate has 46.
    AD 1536:
    Luther translates the Bible from Hebrew and Greek to German. He assumes that, since Jews wrote the Old Testament, theirs is the correct canon; he puts the extra 7 books in an appendix that he calls the "Apocrypha."
    AD 1546:
    The Catholic Council of Trent reaffirms the canonicity of all 46 books.

    Development of the New Testament Canon
    C. AD 51-125:
    The New Testament books are written, but during this same period other early Christian writings are produced--for example, the Didache (c. AD 70), 1 Clement (c. 96), the Epistle of Barnabas (c. 100), and the 7 letters of Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110).
    C. AD 140:
    Marcion, a businessman in Rome, teaches that there were two Gods: Yahweh, the cruel God of the OT, and Abba, the kind father of the NT. So Marcion eliminates the Old Testament as scriptures and, since he is anti-Semitic, keeps from the NT only 10 letters of Paul and 2/3 of Luke's gospel (he deletes references to Jesus' Jewishness). Marcion's "New Testament"--the first to be compiled--forces the mainstream Church to decide on a core canon: the four gospels and letters of Paul.
    C. AD 200:
    But the periphery of the canon is not yet determined. According to one list, compiled at Rome c. AD 200 (the Muratorian Canon), the NT consists of the 4 gospels; Acts; 13 letters of Paul (Hebrews is not included); 3 of the 7 General Epistles (1-2 John and Jude); and also the Apocalypse of Peter.
    AD 367:
    The earliest extant list of the books of the NT, in exactly the number and order in which we presently have them, is written by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in his Easter letter of 367. [Note: this is well after the Constantine's Edict of Toleration in 313 A.D.]
    AD 904:
    Pope Damasus, in a letter to a French bishop, lists the New Testament books in their present number and order.
    AD 1442:
    At the Council of Florence, the entire Church recognizes the 27 books, though does not declare them unalterable.
    AD 1536:
    In his translation of the Bible from Greek into German, Luther removes 4 NT books (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelations) from their normal order and places them at the end, stating that they are less than canonical.
    AD 1546:
    At the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church reaffirms once and for all the full list of 27 books as traditionally accepted.

    Digitized and formatted in HTML by the Augustine Club at Columbia University, 1995

    ReplyDelete
  8. For those who might wish to expand Wikipedia's description of compatibilism as it relates to theology, the link is here.

    ReplyDelete
  9. History of the Scriptures is so interesting, thank you for posting this historical timeline of the compilation of the Bible, The Greatest Book Ever Written.
    -Bible Thumper-

    ReplyDelete
  10. A LDS gentleman once called me a Bible thumper through email, which I am not. That is your tag, not mine.;)

    Thanks

    ReplyDelete