The Westminster Confession of Faith
states that ‘the only living and true God…is without passions’ (Chapter 2,
article I)[1]. Affirmed
in a description of God’s being and character, this statement is often
overlooked in early expositions of the Confession, usually receiving little biblically
supported discussion. Some resources and works dedicated to the confession
brush over this particular statement[2],
while others simply omit comment altogether. The commentary on this section of
the confession usually draws attention to scriptural references on the
spiritual nature of God (James 1:17; Mal 3:6; Acts 14:11), none of which,
however, address the ‘without passions’ affirmation. Is there any scriptural merit
to the statement? The aim here is to review the theological arguments and
Biblical evidence, inturn discussing arising implications to how church
services may be conducted.
Implications for worship
The language of ‘passions’ and the doctrine of impassibility
First, let us regard the word
‘passions’. Muller notes the etymology of
the word - Passio, from patior – defined as a ‘suffering or
enduring of something – noting that it can refer to an occurrence or a
phenomenon or even a disease, thus a strong emphasis on the state as a result
of something external to the individual.[3]
Here in lies the overlapping
discussion of the doctrine of ‘impassibility’ and the issue of ‘passions’. The
Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions defines impassibility as: “The
belief that because God is immutable, unchanging, and unchangeable, he cannot
suffer or be affected by what happens in his creation.” Bray notes that the
relationship of the words is rooted in the term apathes which may be translated as ‘passionless’ (taken to mean
without suffering in practice ) or ‘impassible’ – (meaning without suffering in
principle).[4] It is
important however to note that discussions of passions in the theological
literature extend to experiences not typically associated with suffering, for
instance, joy, delight, hatred and even love.
Indeed the language used to
describe God in the scriptures often depict him as grieved (Ps 78:40), angry
(Deuteronomy 1:37), jealous (Deut 6:15) - but also pleased (1 Kgs 3:10), joyful
(Zeph 3:17), and moved by pity (Judg 2:18). How should such statements be
regarded then?
Robert Shaw in his exposition of
the Westminster Confession of Faith explains scripture’s use of emotive
language ascribed to God in the same way anthropomorphisms
work. He argues that scripture describes God as having body parts, for example
hands, face eyes and ears, simply to accommodate to our human frame of
reference; ‘In the same manner must we explain the several passions that are
ascribed to God, - such as anger, fury, jealousy, revenge, bowels of mercy…’[5]
Along similar lines, classical theism treats such biblical statements as anthropopathisms— defined as figurative
expressions ascribing human passions
to God, such figures of speech are said to accommodate the limitations of human
language and understanding. This post hoc qualification aside, however, it is
difficult to ascertain what the confession precisely includes or excludes in
the word ‘passions’. Upon regarding the complete statement on God (Chapter 2),
it seems that whatever ‘passions’ meant to the authors, they are distinguished
from; long-suffering, love and mercy amongst other divine attributes; for the
statement reads of God: “…most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, …
and withal most just and terrible in his judgments; hating all sin;…”. Thus,
the writers of the statement were either affirming a distinction between
passions and the attributes above, or using language such as ‘hating’ only
figuratively.
What of love? The preceding position denying passions being properly attributed
to God does not account for the scriptural statement ‘God is love’ (1 John 4:16). Whilst love is considered to be
attributed to God, Philip R. Johnson argues that human love is closer to ‘passion’, but God’s love, as revealed in
the scriptures reflects God’s ‘affection’
which is essentially very different from the human experience; he states: “But
if love is stripped of passion, we think, it's a lesser kind of love.”,
essentially arguing that love stripped of passion is a higher form of love. It
is difficult to perceive of love in such a vacuum. In the words of Henry
Scougal, ‘Love is that powerful prevalent passion by which all the faculties
and inclinations of the soul are determined…’[6]
Richard Muller in outlining ‘the
problem of affections and passions in God’ offers a relatively comprehensive
review of the issue of passions. He enlists a division of Polanus which necessitates
that the divine attributes are either proper or figurative. It is noted that
for the most part in this discussion that affections (or passions)[7]
are attributed to God not properly but figuratively. He cites a qualification
by Ames
Whether passions or affections;
Muller identifies four problems inherent in the use of such language. First, he
poses that they have an inherent sense of incompleteness in and of their own,
second, he argues that affections or passions indicate a lack or deficiency in
the being who has them, thus a sense of incompleteness which can not be
attributed to God; third, ‘affections are necessarily accompanied with change
and mutability, and forth, some affections when taken without qualifications as
metaphors or figurative language reflect a weak God or ‘denote impotence’ as
quoted of Owen.[9]
In turn he puts forth that the
reformers have followed on from this line of thought, their contribution
reemphasising the constancy and consistency of God’s affections in his
relationship to the world. He also notes that that the orthodox reformers
acknowledge this premise with the qualification that unlike human affections,
God’s affections are permanent rather that transient dispositions.[10]
Moreover it is understood in this position that the affections are not
essential attributes of God but rather ‘ad-extra’
manifestations by which God is known through these effects whilst enabling him
to sustain a relationship with his creatures.
It seems that an essential goal of
these discussions is the protection of God from the negative connotations
attached to passions. Thus, the notion of God with passions is either denied,
or heavily qualified, as in Muller’s concluding comments quoting Gill
‘…properly speaking, there are no affections in God,…they (affections) are
ascribed to him; as love, pity, hatred, anger &c., from which must be
removed everything that is carnal, sensual, or has any degree of imperfection
in it’[11]
And thus even the love of God is said to have its primary location ‘certainly
among the affections of the divine will.’[12]
Affirming the doctrine of
impassibility is thus considered to be in line with the Westminster
Amidst the assertion that much of
the biblical language of God is to be regarded in purely metaphorical terms, a
due caution is sounded by some. Dabney offers a caution about the danger of
brushing aside the meaning of biblical figures of speech. While he
acknowledged the widespread use of anthropopathism in Scripture, he does not rid
them from their ‘common sense applications’. Consequently, he begs the
question: "Is all this so anthropopathic as not even to mean that God's
active principles here have an objective? Why not let the Scriptures mean what
they so plainly strive to declare?"[16]
Erickson adopts a similar view emphasising that it is unreasonable to think of
God as emotionless; since he is both transcendent and imminent, his experience
of emotion must be somewhat like our experience and somewhat different from it.
What unites and what distinguishes our experience of passions from God's? Suffering often comes upon us as a consequence of straying from God's ways; 'Before I was afflicted, I went astray, but now I obey your word' (Psa 119:67). What of grief? We can be comforted in grief that God is no starnger to this kind of pain. In the midst of grief for his beloved Israel he declares: 'My heart is changed within me, all my compassion is kindled'. Our anger is often misplaced, God's is righteous and purposeful, indeed ultimately loving.
Passions are regarded by some as
belonging to the material. A. Hodge, states in support of
the Westminster statement: ‘We deny that the properties of matter, such as bodily parts and passions belong to Him’[17]
He further states that ‘We make this denial – a) because there is no evidence
that He does posses any such properties; and b) because from the very nature of
matter and its affections, it is
inconsistent with those infinite and absolute perfections which are of his
essence…’ (emphasis added). First, it is assumed that passions are attributed
to matter – interestingly however, Hodge does state that ‘in the case of men,
spiritual faculties are exercised through bodily organs’[18],
a distinction which is notable between God and his creatures. Hodge affirms
that such language of passions is characteristic of the Old and not the New
Testament and occurs for the most part in highly rhetorical passages of the
poetical and prophetical books. The problem with this view is that while
anthropomorphic language of body parts is clearly relevant to the physical, one
can not say the same of passions which are spiritual in nature. Therefore it is
not unreasonable to regard our passions as reflections of our spiritual nature,
and thus our similarity to God in this way stems from our being made in his
image and likeness.
Systematic theologians today are
divided on the issue. Reymond understands the denial of passions as strictly
referring to bodily passions, such as
hunger and sexual desire. Whilst affirming that God is impassible in the sense
that the creature can not inflict pain or suffering upon him that is outside
his decreed will; Reymond states that God empathises
with human grief and suffering. J I Packer is also cited in Reymond’s
discussion – emphasising God’s ability to empathise and exhibit sensitivity
towards his creatures. This position however, does not account for the real difference
between empathy for another’s experience and experiencing the matter first
hand. God is said to experience, not merely empathise with us.
On the other side of the spectrum, some theologians such as Nicholas P.
Wolterstorff, Professor of Philosophical Theology at Yale Divinity School, and
author of ‘Does God suffer?’ rejects the doctrine of impassibility and
concludes that God could not possibly be unmoved by human tragedy. Open theism
leaps to the extreme of asserting a God who evolves in response to our change
process – in one sense a God moulded by his creatures’ experiences. For
instance, Clark Pinnock states "God is not cool and collected but is
deeply involved and can be wounded."
He believes the essence of divine love and tenderness is seen in God's
"making himself vulnerable within the relationship with us."[19]
Must we affirm impassibility to guard against the dangers of open theism?
Grudem is of the opinion that
affirming that God is without passions, along with adopting a view of God as impassible
is beyond the boundaries of scripture. He regards the support cited for the
‘without passions’ affirmation in Acts 14:15 (when Paul and Barnabas refuse
worship from the people at Lystra by saying that they are ‘men of like
passions’) as inadequate and taken out of linguistic and situational context.[20]
He refers to a few of many scriptural references of God’s passions, further
observing that God, just as is shown in scripture, feels and experiences such
‘passions’ and emotions, and that he is the author of passions in his
creatures.
The suffering Messiah
The reasoning regarding scriptural
references to emotive language ascribed to God as merely metaphorical runs into
problems particularly when the person of Jesus is regarded. However, this is strangely
absent from much of this debate. The cross is the ultimate picture of
suffering, Jesus experienced pain and suffered. Chapter II, article iii of the
Confession affirms that the Son is God, and of Christ Chapter VIII, article iv
affirms his suffering.
Full of passion, he was visibly
angry (for example when he cleared the temple); when witnessing the the
mourning Jews at the death of Lazarus, ‘he was deeply moved in spirit and
troubled’ (John 11:33); ‘He was truly despised and rejected, a man of sorrows,
acquainted with grief.’ He suffered loneliness, abandonment and humiliation –
very real, personal experiences. More so, God chose to accomplish the work of
saving the world through the incarnation – and indeed the death and
resurrection of the Son. ‘It was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer’, and 'After the suffering of his
soul, he will see the light’ (Isa 53:10, 11). If we accept that Jesus was the
true revelation of God, (and more so, a true reflection of the Father - John
14:9), then how do we appraise such reflections of grief, sorrow, pain, and
suffering so vividly portrayed in Jesus? Must we ascribe these to his humanity
alone? Must we assume a difference between the Son’s experience in his divine
and human natures to satisfy a portrait of an impassible of God? The scriptural
witness does not warrant this distinction, nor the dismissal of Jesus’ passions
as mere ‘human’ attributes. These instances do not afford us the understanding
that this was merely an attempt to condescend to our human experience. In fact
these scriptures are consistent with the portrayals of God in the Old
Testament. As Erickson points out, that God has chosen to allow evil, ‘Yet he
did this, fully knowing all that would happen, including the suffering that he
would bring on himself.’[21]
Implications for worship
The biblical portrait of God full
of passion has implications for our worship. In light of our creation in his
image - we are able relate to him with our whole being, including our passions.
The Bible talks of God as delighting in his people (Zeph 3:17), and in our
prayers, praise and worship (Psa 22:3). We are exhorted to sing and praise God
in the scriptures - “shout to God with loud songs of joy” - the Psalms contain
the most prominent examples, but also in the New Testament as in Ephesians
5:19.
Moreover, the language of the heart and soul is central to how we relate to our God and to each other –
"You shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart, with your whole
soul, and with all your mind, and you shall love your neighbour as
yourself." (Luke 10:27). The picture of the new heaven and earth depicts
service and worship to God in the same spirit (Rev 22:3).
How are we to pray, privately and
in community? Believing that God responds to us, not just by an unaffected act
of his will, but rather through affection and delight in relationship, empowers
us to lift up our prayers to him in spirit and in truth, knowing that prayers
are more than just means to an end but a process of relationship with our Father.
Lastly, to deny that God suffers is
contrary in a real sense to the work of the cross. Whenever the last supper is
partaken of, we remember the work of God effected through the suffering of the
Son. And consequently we affirm that to suffer for his sake is honourable and
that we share in all his sufferings (Rom 8:17) as his disciples (John 16:33). In our suffering, we hold on to the knowledge that God did not spare his only Son - if we can empathise with Abraham at the thought of losing Isaac; how can we not acknowledge the suffering of God because of his love for us? It is at the cross that we see God's love and God's suffering.
To affirm the statement that God is
without passions would be either to deny much of the revelation of scripture on
God’s person, nature and attributes, or at best to strip away their face value
and replace it with qualifications and suppositions. In light of our creation
in the image and likeness of our God, and as the scriptures portray a God of
passions, we are created to experience and relate with passions – it is only
natural that our experience in this regard reflects something of our creator.
Humans are like him, the reverse is not true although his nature far exceeds
its expressions in us. While our experience is marred by sin, God’s is
righteous, and is always towards a good end. This very nature allows us to
relate to God in prayer, praise and worship which are essentially spiritual.
Our God given ability for emotional experience allows us to perceive and relate
to God, we feel joy – not surprisingly as our creator feels joy; we grieve, are
angered and experience jealousy – for scripture tells us that we bear the image
and likeness of our God. Perhaps the statement ‘without passions’ is not well
defended in theological literature because, when stripped away from its
philosophical presuppositions and qualifications, it does not stand on sound
scriptural basis. As B. B. Warfield eloquently stated: “Men tell us that God
is, by the very necessity of His nature, incapable of passion, incapable of
being moved by inducements from without; that He dwells in holy calm and
unchangeable blessedness, untouched by human sufferings or human sorrows for
ever,—… Let us bless our God that it is not true. God can feel; God does love.
… “But is not this gross anthropomorphism? We are careless of names: it is the
truth of God”… “And we decline to yield up the God of the Bible and the God of
our hearts to any philosophical abstraction.”[22]
[1] Purpose
for which WCF was written: Response to commission by the English parliament in
1643.
[2] For
example, Pipa J. (2005)
[3] Muller,
Richard A. Post-Reformation Reformed
Dogmatics : The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, Ca. 1520 to Ca.
1725. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids ,
Mich.
[4] Bray, G.
The Doctrine of God. Downers Grove : Intervarsity Press, 1993.
[5] Shaw,
Robert. An Exposition of the Westminster
[6] Scougal,
Henry. The Life of God in the Soul of Man. London
[7] At times
the distinction between the two terms is brought into the discussion;
affections being positive in nature and having an inclination of will, while a
passion is negative, and a form of suffering and without a permanent
disposition.
[8] Ames
[9] Owen,
Vindiciae evangelicae, Works, 110, in Muller.
[10] Quoting
Vermigli: ‘it must be considered that that the scripture speaketh of God after
the manner of men…’ Calvin is also cited
on this point: ‘I know quiet well that God is not subject to human passions’ ,
further explaining that when God is said to be angered, grieved, wrathful that
those instances simply refer to God’s reproval of evil.
[11] Gill, Complete Body of Divinity, I, in
Muller, 557.
[12] Muller,
561.
[13] Edwards
makes this distinction as such: ‘Affection is a word that, in its ordinary
signification, seems to be something more extensive than passion, being used
for all vigorous lively actings of the will or inclination; but passion for
those that are more sudden, and whose effects on the animal spirits are more
violent, and the mind more overpowered, and less in its own command.
Treatise Concerning the Religious Affections (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth,
1961 reprint), 26-27, in Johnson.
[14] Theism for Our Time," in Peter T.
O'Brien and David G. Peterson, God Who Is Rich in Mercy (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1986), 16, In Johnson.
[15] John of
Damascus is cited as one of the earliest proponents of the doctrine of
impassibility.
[16] ‘God's Indiscriminate Proposals of Mercy’
in Johnson.
[17] Hodge,
A. A. The Confession of Faith : A Handbook of Christian Doctrine Expounding
the Westminster
[18] Hodge,
49.
[19] "An Interview with Clark Pinnock," Modern
Reformation (Nov-Dec, 1998), 37, in Johnson.
[20] Grudem,
Wayne A. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Leicester , Eng.
[21]
Erickson, Millard J. God the Father
Almighty: A Contemporary Exploration of the Divine Attributes. Grand Rapids , Mich.
[22] J. M.
Frame. No Other God: A Response to Open
Theism. Phillipsburg
Bibliography:
Barth, Karl. "The Humanity of God." In The
Faith of the Church. London
Boff, Leonardo and Robert R. Barr. Passion of
Christ, Passion of the World : The Facts, Their Interpretation, and Their
Meaning Yesterday and Today. Maryknoll ,
N.Y.
Bray, G. The Doctrine of God. Downers Grove : Intervarsity Press, 1993.
Erickson, Millard J. God the Father Almighty : A
Contemporary Exploration of the Divine Attributes. Grand Rapids , Mich.
Frame J. M. No Other God: A Response to Open
Theism. Phillipsburg
Grudem, Wayne A. Systematic Theology : An
Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Leicester ,
Eng.
Hodge, A. A. The Confession of Faith : A Handbook
of Christian Doctrine Expounding the Westminster Edinburgh
Johnson, P. R., "God without Mood Swings:
Recovering the Doctrine of Divine Impassibility. ", Canon Press.
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/impassib.htm.
Muller, Richard A. Post-Reformation Reformed
Dogmatics : The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, Ca. 1520 to Ca.
1725. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids ,
Mich.
Pipa, Joseph A. The Westminster Ross-shire ,
Scotland
Piper, John. The Pleasures of God. Rev. and
exp. ed. Fearn, Ross-shire , Scotland : Mentor
Religions, The Concise Oxford Oxford University
Reymond, Robert L. A New Systematic Theology of
the Christian Faith. Nashville ,
Tenn.
Scougal, Henry. The Life of God in the Soul of Man. London
Shaw, Robert. An Exposition of the Westminster Ross-shire ,
Scotland
Smith, Robert. Theology 602 Lecture Notes
(The Doctrine of God), Sydney Missionary and Bible College
Williamson, G. I. The Westminster Philadelphia , Pa.
No comments:
Post a Comment