← Back to sermon library

So this is chapter 2 of God and 
of the Holy Trinity, paragraph 1. The Lord our God is but one 
only living and true God whose subsistence is in and of himself 
infinite, excuse me, infinite in being and perfection. whose 
essence cannot be comprehended by any but himself, a most pure 
spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, who only 
hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach 
unto, who is immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, 
every way infinite, most holy, most wise, most free, most absolute. working all things according 
to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will for his 
own glory, most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant 
in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and 
sin, the rewarder of them that diligently seek him, and with 
all most just and terrible in his judgments, hating all sin, 
and who will by no means clear the guilty. So unlike some of 
the previous sessions, we'll perhaps just dive right into 
the doctrine now, studying divine impassibility rather than doing 
my customary 15-minute introduction. Let's just get right into the 
doctrine. And we're going to try and look at five things this 
morning. First, the confessional presentation of the doctrine 
of impassibility. Secondly, the definition of impassibility. Thirdly, the biblical witness 
to impassibility. Fourth, the revelatory condescension 
of God with respect to this doctrine and really everything else. And 
then fifthly, the theological and practical benefits of maintaining 
the traditional and classical view of divine impassibility. 
So first off, the confessional presentation of the doctrine 
of divine impassibility, and it's seen again in the statement 
in paragraph one with respect to God. a most pure spirit invisible 
without body parts or passions so specifically divine impassibility 
is seen in the statement without passions remember we noted that 
uh... what we could do or what we could 
say is how uh... what is a most pure spirit or 
or how is god uh... defined as a most pure spirit 
well the confession answers in a sense by saying invisible incorporeal 
or immaterial, he is incomplex or uncompounded without parts, 
and then he is impassable or without passions. So, the doctrine 
is explicitly there behind the statement without passions, but 
it's also behind or it flows from, it is an entailment of 
some other things that we find in paragraph 1 and in paragraph 
2. For example, when we read who 
is immutable, eternal, every way infinite. A passable God 
could not be eternal, He could not be immutable, and He could 
not be every way infinite. Also, it's behind the statement, 
or we see it in the statements, most absolute, most loving, most 
gracious, most merciful, most long-suffering, most abundant 
in goodness and truth. Again, a God who is passable, 
could not be most loving, most gracious, etc. And then it's 
most certainly seen in the statement in paragraph 2, again, where 
we read, God, having all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, 
in and of himself, is alone in and unto himself all sufficient, 
not standing in need of any creature which he hath made, nor deriving 
any glory from them, but only manifesting his glory in, by, 
unto, and upon them. where would we see impassibility 
in that statement? If impassibility, we'll define 
it in a moment, but if impassibility means that God is without passions, 
that he is without emotions, if we are to understand emotions 
as undergoing change in an emotive state, then it would not be the 
case that God would have all life, glory, blessedness in and 
of himself, and he would not be all sufficient in and of himself, 
because a definition of himself, would come by way of his interactions 
and reactions with his creatures in time and in history. So he 
would be dependent upon, for a proper definition and understanding 
of himself, upon creatures and in his creation. God is impassable 
and we see that truth coming out in this statement in paragraph 
two as well. The confessional presentation 
of divine impassibility is seen first in that statement without 
passions, and then secondarily in other connected and intimately 
connected doctrines that paragraphs one and two bring out. And certainly 
paragraph three, but more to the point, paragraphs one and 
the beginning of paragraph two. Moving on then to the definition 
of divine impassibility. Secondly, the definition of divine 
impassibility. And we could say, though there 
might be some nuances in varying degrees, that there's three approaches, 
that there are three approaches to divine impassibility, three 
views. And the first one would be extreme 
passability, extreme passability. And we could define it this way, 
and this is when Andy sort of summarizing the approaches of 
a man called Juergen Moltmann, as well as others who would have 
a view of extreme passability. If God is a loving and compassionate 
God, as he surely is, he must not only be aware of human suffering, 
but he must also himself be an active victim of such suffering. He, too, must suffer. So that 
would be an extreme passabilist view, which, as you hopefully 
understand, is absolutely heretical. So the extreme passibilist view 
is, again, what we just said. A loving God must, because he 
is loving, be aware, not only aware of human suffering, but 
also himself be an active victim of suffering. He too must suffer. 
So for God to be truly loving, he must suffer along with those 
who are suffering. And it sort of was spawned by, 
if you will, the Holocaust in the 1930s and 40s. If God is truly loving, he can't 
just sit idly by as if that's the only other option. He can't 
just sit idly by and watch his people being tortured and being 
physically tormented and persecuted in the gas chambers, et cetera. 
That's sort of a thing. He must be then with them suffering 
and even hanging on the gallows with those who are hanged. It's 
a nonsensical and an absolutely blasphemous position, but nevertheless, 
that is one of the views with regards to this arena of passability 
and impassability. Secondly, the second view we 
could call the contemporary view of impassibility. And if we could 
define it this way, and this is Rob Lister, who is a proponent 
of this view, as the self-determined sovereign, God is not subject 
to emotional effects that are involuntarily or unexpectedly 
wrung from him by creatures. Now that's a good statement. 
I'll read it again, as the self-determined sovereign, God is not subject 
to emotional effects that are involuntarily or unexpectedly 
wrung from him by creatures. And obviously we must uphold 
that as Christians, as confessional Christians, as reformed Christians 
who seek to uphold the immutability of God. The problem with this 
view is, as we'll see in the definition of the classical view, 
is that it can move the understanding of or the doctrine of or the 
entailment of impassibility from the realm of immutability to 
the realm of God's sovereignty. So that they might say, and I 
believe some of them would say, that God is in sovereign control 
of his emotions. So while he's not affected involuntarily 
or unexpectedly from creatures outside of himself, from his 
creation, the created order, and you know, his creatures, 
nevertheless, he is, he can inwardly have control over his own emotions. 
So he's not affected by others, but he can in and of himself 
affect his own emotional responses and arouse his own passions, 
that sort of a thing. We could call this view instead 
of the contemporary view of impassability, as Dolezal labels it, self-controlled 
passable-ism. So it is still a form of passable-ism. It's not extreme passable-ism. 
It's not that outright heretical approach to this idea of impassability 
and passability, but nevertheless, It is wrong because it's only 
excluding involuntary or unexpected reactions or emotions in God 
aroused by those outside of him. It's not precluding this idea 
of self-controlled or having sovereignty over his own being. It is, as we've touched upon 
in previous studies, We cannot say that God is self-controlled 
or self-caused because it rubs against his simplicity. It rubs 
against his most absoluteness. So then what is the confessional 
view? We would no doubt say the biblical 
view then of divine impassibility. Well actually just before we 
move on there, just one quote. here with regards to this question. 
Why the departure? As Jim said in the introduction, 
you know, for let's say 2,000, not 2,000 years, but let's say 
1,900 years, you know, why has the church constantly affirmed 
and upheld this doctrine of impassibility and only in, you know, the last, 
you know, century and a half, if you will, why is there this 
departure from? And in our modern time, maybe 
a more pronounced departure from this doctrine of impassibility. 
One man writes, what has brought about such a radical reconception 
of God? How in only 100 years has the 
Christian theological tradition of almost 2,000 years so readily 
and so assuredly seemingly been overturned? There are basically 
three factors that have contributed to this change. The prevailing 
social and cultural milieu, modern interpretation of biblical revelation, 
and contemporary trends in philosophy. So you see, it is the stuff of 
ancient and pristine and maintained doctrine to uphold what we'll 
define next, this classical view of impassibility. And it is only 
the stuff of recent deviation with social and cultural factors, 
modern interpretations of biblical revelation, and contemporary 
trends in philosophy that these passibilist approaches to God 
have been perpetuated and held to. So what then is the definition 
of divine impassibility? The classical view, this is the 
third view, and again the view that Jim and I subscribe to, 
the view that the confession upholds, and the view that will 
now define, which is defined this way. Impassibility is that 
divine attribute whereby God is said not to experience inner 
emotional changes of state, whether enacted freely from within or 
affected by his relationship to and interaction with human 
beings and the created order. So some observations then on 
this definition. First off, impassibility is inseparably 
linked to immutability. Impassibility is inseparably 
linked to immutability. Notice the statement of the definition. 
Impassibility is that divine attribute whereby God has said 
not to experience inner emotional changes of state. So we would 
say that impassibility is an entailment of immutability. The doctrine of immutability, 
God cannot change. And we'll look at the Bible in 
a few minutes, some passages that speak to this. So impassibility 
is an entailment of God cannot change, specifically applied 
to passions or emotions. And then secondly, impassibility 
not only rejects the notion that creation and creatures can change 
God, but also rejects the notion that God can change God. You see, when the statement continues, 
whether enacted freely from within, or affected by his relationship 
to and interaction with human beings in the created order. 
So not only is God impassable with respect to God, he does 
not somehow sovereignly and in some manner of self-control arouse 
and change things within his own being, moving from a position 
of passivity or passive potency to actuality. Remember when we 
talked about simplicity, he is pure act. He doesn't act upon 
himself in order to bring passive potency to actuality. He doesn't 
have this principle of possibility of change in him whereby he can 
actively bring that to perfection. Again, that steals from his absoluteness 
and it steals from the perfections of his attributes if there's 
this passivity or passive potency. in God. So impassibility not 
only rejects the notion that creatures and creation can change 
God, but also rejects the notion that God can change God. Because 
he is pure, self-subsistent being itself, he is pure act, and therefore 
he cannot change. It is an ontological impossibility 
for him to change himself. He cannot deny himself. Remember 
a number of Sundays ago when we talked about the definition 
of omnipotence, we spoke to the fact that God is able to do anything 
he wills or can will that is not repugnant to his own nature 
or implies a contradiction. And so God is not and God cannot 
because of he being pure act and, you know, you know, God 
in and of himself, he cannot change himself, he cannot deny 
himself, he cannot do the contradictory or those things that are repugnant 
to his own nature. So again, the definition of impassibility 
before we move on. Impassibility is that divine 
attribute whereby God has said not to experience inner emotional 
changes of state, whether enacted freely from within, or affected 
by his relationship to and interaction with human beings and the created 
order. What do passions mean then? So 
we have this definition of impassibility. We've talked about the confession 
statement without passions. What then does passions mean? Because you see, when Christians 
hear this idea, God without passions, immediately it might rise up 
within them to say, wait, well, wait a minute. God is very passionate. I mean, don't we read that in 
the scriptures that God is full of love, joy, mercy, all these 
things. If God is anything, God is very 
passionate. And I think it is, first off, 
to misunderstand or in the very least to misunderstand what passion 
actually means. I think we have this idea of 
a passion as being, you know, the maximal virtue of some sort 
of a thing like love or, you know, he's really passionate 
in his love. It's this, you know, if you have 
this idea of love on a scale, you've got, you know, he loves, 
but then he's really passionate. in his love. And I think we have 
that sort of idea. It's this, the fullness of an 
emotion or an affection or something like that. But we need to define 
what passion actually means and what's in the background or what 
they are, the semantics of passion as used here in the confession 
without passions. The term passion is derived, 
this is Dolezal, from the late Latin passio, which means to 
suffer, to submit, or to undergo. Again, the term passion is derived 
from the late Latin passio, the original pati, which means to 
suffer, to submit, or to undergo. Dulzell would go on to write, 
the common denominator in all instances of passion, whether 
inflicting pain or producing joy, is the experience of, and 
this is very important, undergoing some sort of change. So when 
we say God is without passions, we're understanding passions 
to be or to carry the meaning of to suffer, to submit, or to 
undergo, whether freely from within or as affected by those 
outside of himself. So passion, again, to suffer, 
to submit, or to undergo. And we have an idea of that or 
a conception of that when we talk about the passion of Christ. 
When we talk about the passion of Christ, we're speaking to 
that you know, pinnacle of his humiliation in the incarnation 
whereby he undergoes the sufferings of his human opposers and enemies 
unto death upon Calvary's tree. The passion of Christ in that 
the day of his crucifixion and even the night before where he 
undergoes the unlawful hands activity of those who would put 
him to death ultimately upon the cross. And so we see there 
with Christ's work, we see this reality of to suffer, to submit, 
and to undergo. We may not have time to really 
cover it this morning, perhaps, in the question and answer portion. But at the end, one of the theological 
and practical benefits is that the doctrine of impassibility 
protects the uniqueness and the glory of the incarnation. If 
it was the case that God was passable and that he could submit 
and suffer and undergo, Then why the incarnation? Why take 
upon himself humanity? Why take upon himself the form 
of a bondservant if God is passable? It steals away from the blessedness 
and the uniqueness of the incarnation to say that God can undergo change, 
that he can suffer and submit. To whatever degree you ascribe 
that to God, you steal away from the uniqueness of the incarnation 
when God, in the fullness of the time, sent forth his son, 
born of a woman, born under the law. So, passion to suffer, to 
submit, to undergo. Now, the word emotion then, the 
understanding of emotion needs to come in now, too, because, 
you know, if anything, we read our Bibles and we find that God 
is very emotional. I mean, the confession here says, 
most loving, most gracious, most merciful, most long-suffering, 
abundant in goodness and truth. So how can we define impassibility 
as saying God has said not to experience inner emotional changes 
of state, whether enacted freely from within or affected by his 
relationship to an interaction with human beings and the created 
order. How can we say that? Well, first off, there probably 
is a way where we may be able to wholesomely use the word emotion, 
but it might be best to stay away from it because the idea 
of emotion as well, like passions, carries with it the understanding 
of to undergo or to change. For example, emotion comes or 
has French and Latin etymology, which means, or which carries 
the idea of to excite, to disturb, or to move. We cannot say that 
God is excited, that God is moved, or that God is disturbed. You 
know, when we very often, we have this in our own human understanding, 
this idea of emotion. Oh, that man or that woman, man, 
they're very emotional. And really, it's not a good thing 
usually when we say that. They're very emotional. You know, 
it usually means that they're very easily aroused or excited 
unto an upheaval in what should be a normal, calm rationality. 
Gordon Clark described emotion as sudden upheavals in our normal, 
calm rationality. We're at a position of, say, 
this normal, calm rationality, and that's not to be seen as 
some sort of cold, detached apathy, but just we're at a position 
whereby we could say we're level-headed, we're self-controlled. Something 
happens and we just fly off into this excited, aroused, uncontrolled 
emotion. We're not, of course, to understand 
that as it pertains to God. God cannot be excited or disturbed 
or moved. He is the one who by his pure 
act excites and disturbs and moves. The first mover cannot 
be moved by any outside of himself. God cannot be moved as he is 
self-subsistent being itself, as he is pure act. He cannot 
be moved. Dolezal says with regards to 
emotion, emotional experience brings to its subject a new state 
of actuality that was not previously present. So you see, what we 
would have then is we would have God before creation and God after 
creation. creation, and more specifically 
if we get to the ideas of grief and sorrow that are ascribed 
to God in scripture, and we'll get to those ascriptions later. 
But God was one thing prior to creation, and then with the introduction 
of creation and more specifically the fall of man into sin, we 
have a different God because now he's aroused to grief and 
sorrow. His eternal blessedness has now 
been affected because man has fallen into sin. And now there's 
a diminution, if you will, of his eternal blessedness because 
now he's grieved or pained in his heart and he sorrows. Well, 
if we say that's true about God, then immediately we've taken 
immutability off the table. Immediately, we've taken his 
most absoluteness and thrown it out the window. And so when 
we speak with regards to passions and emotions, when we understand 
those things rightly and semantically as to suffer, to submit, to undergo, 
to excite, to disturb, to move, then we must immediately deny 
those things to God because he is most absolute, most loving. He is a divine and simple being. who cannot change. So that is 
the definition. We've already looked previous 
to that, the confessional presentation. So now thirdly, the biblical 
witness to the doctrine of impassibility. And you can grab your Bibles 
and open them first to Numbers 23. Numbers 23. There we find, and these are 
specifically texts that speak to divine immutability. Remember, we said that impassibility 
is an entailment of immutability. In Numbers 23 and verse 19, we 
have a text that speaks to the fact that God cannot change. 
Notice, God is not a man that he should lie, nor a son of man 
that he should repent. Has he said and will he not do? 
Or has he spoken and will he not make it good? God does not 
change his mind. He does not move from this ethical 
position of being the God of truth to then lying. He does 
not move or he does not say one thing and then do another, but 
rather he is, and what's brought out again is the difference between 
God and man. You see the ontological distinction 
again here. God is not a man. that he should 
lie, nor a son of man that he should repent." You can turn 
later in Revelation to 1 Samuel, and there in 1 Samuel chapter 
15, we have another statement with regards to God's immutability, 
specifically at verse 29. And also, the strength of Israel 
will not lie nor relent, for he is not a man that he should 
relent. So here a clear statement again 
with regards to that ontological distinction. God is not on the 
same order or chain of being as men and angels. He's not a 
constituent fellow of being in general, but rather he is wholly 
transcendently other of a different order or chain of being. And 
then also, and how that, where that distinction is seen, it's 
seen in the fact that he will not lie nor relent. You can turn to Malachi 3. Malachi 
chapter 3, because there as well we have the biblical witness 
to the doctrine of immutability, of which impassibility is an 
entailment of, it's necessarily connected. Malachi 3 and verse 
6, for I am the Lord, I do not change, therefore you are not 
consumed, O sons of Jacob. And then finally a New Testament 
text, you can turn to James 1. These are good texts to keep 
in our minds, not only with regards to this subject and with regards 
to immutability, generally speaking, but also with regards to our 
comfort as Christians. Go to these passages. Things 
change all around us. Men lie. Men relent. Men change 
their minds. Men promise things and don't 
follow through, but the Lord our God is not a man. James 1 
17 this is what we read every good gift and every perfect gift 
is from above and comes down from the father of lights notice 
with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning with God 
there is no variation nor shadow of turning this these texts clearly 
speak to the fact that God cannot change whether ethically speaking, 
or with regards to his emotions, or with regards to anything. 
Very often the argument is, though, by those who would maintain the 
other two, well, probably not the first one, because they would 
say God is mutable, but the second view, the contemporary view of 
impassibility, where God can't be changed by anything outside 
of himself, but he can change or arouse within himself changes 
He has sovereign control over his own emotions, if you will, 
so he can change them in and of himself. There is a lessening 
by these advocates sometimes of the doctrine of immutability 
to which it only applies to his ethical immutability. In other 
words, God will always be loving and good. He will not change 
with respect to his ethical holiness and perfections. But you see, 
that necessitates or that is built upon the foundation of 
his ontological immutability. If God cannot ethically change, 
it's because he cannot ontologically change. How do we know this? 
Well, I think we could understand this by statements such as the 
one that we find in Hebrews 6. If you turn there for a moment. 
The fact that God will not lie or will not relent is built upon 
his. ontological unchangeability or 
his ontological immutability in the promise that he makes 
to his covenant people. Notice in verse 13 of Hebrews 
6, for when God made a promise to Abraham, because he could 
swear by no one greater, he swore by himself saying, surely blessing 
I will bless you and multiplying I will multiply you. So the the 
unchanging nature of his covenantal condescension and promise to 
Abraham is built upon this oath and promise, these two immutable 
things. He swears by himself. He swears upon his own being. 
So he swears with respect. He makes this promise. He confirms 
it with an oath swearing on his own being. So his ethical immutability 
is founded upon his ontological immutability, he swears by his 
own being. And so it's not only the case 
when we talk about God's immutability that it pertains only to his 
ethical immutability, that he cannot change ethically, but 
rather the ontological immutability God, the non-changeability with 
respect to his essence and being is the foundation whereby we 
can ever say that he is ethically immutable. So those passages 
speak to his immutability. Where might we find impassibility 
specifically? As Jim mentioned in his sermon, 
Last Lord's Day, and it's a text that he touches upon in his work 
on this particular doctrine, we find in Acts chapter 14 a 
statement that the Westminster confession of faith uses this 
particular proof text, Acts 14, 15, for the statement without 
passions in its listing of proof texts for the doctrine of God 
in paragraph one of chapter two. So in Acts 14, 15, maybe we'll just, we'll back 
up here to verse 14. well, to verse 8, and we'll try 
and read through this here. Notice, and in Lystra, a certain 
man without strength in his feet was sitting, a cripple from his 
mother's womb who had never walked. This man heard Paul speaking, 
Paul observing him intently and seeing that he had faith to be 
healed, said with a loud voice, stand up straight on your feet, 
and he leaped and walked. Now, when the people saw what 
Paul had done, they raised their voices, saying in the Lyconian 
language, the gods have come down to us in the likeness of 
man. And Barnabas, they called Zeus and Paul Hermes because 
he was the chief speaker. Then the priest of Zeus, whose 
temple was in front of their city, brought oxen and garlands 
to the gates, intending to sacrifice with the multitudes. But when 
the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard this, they tore their clothes 
and ran in among the multitude, crying out and saying, men, why 
are you doing these things? We are also men with the same 
nature as you." You see, This particular text here, you may 
ask the question, okay, then why is this text used as a proof 
text for divine impassibility or the confessional statement 
without passions? Well, it's seen in this language 
here where we read, we also are men with the same nature as you. The King James Version translates 
it, we are also men of like passions with you. You see, they're rejecting 
this worship, the offering of these sacrifices to them. They're 
tearing their clothes in just this abhorrent reaction of the 
blasphemy that men would even consider or conceive of offering 
sacrifices to men and worshiping men. And the very point of distinction 
here between men and God is at the point of God not having passions 
or men having passions. The very distinction that is 
introduced between God and men here is at the point of passions 
or emotions. We are men with like passions 
as you. The Greek word, I believe, is 
homoio patheis. which is, which, you know, sort 
of contains two words there, homoios, which is similar or 
like or resemblance, and then pathes, which has to do with, 
or which has to do with feelings, emotions, those sorts of things. 
We have, we have, where are we here? Oh, pasco, to be affected 
or have been affected, to feel, have a sensible experience, or 
here it is again, to undergo. And then homoios, again, like, 
similar, or resembling. So the very distinction that 
they draw is in affirming their likeness to the very men that 
they're preaching to. We're men like you. We're not 
God. We're not God. The reason that we are like you 
is because we have these like passions as you. But God does 
not properly have these things. And so it's a very important 
distinction that the apostles bring out there in that occasion 
with those pagans. So we have immutability, we have 
impassibility, specifically at Acts 14, 15. Also the doctrine 
of eternity is very important here, God's transcendence over 
time. We won't turn to these, but you 
can make a note, 2 Timothy 1.9, Titus 1.2, Jude 25. On this notion, Dozel writes, 
passions, which are simply emotions acquired through one's unfolding 
experiences require one to be in time and to undergo successive 
states of being and thus to be temporal. If temporal succession 
of life is denied of God, and that's something that we must 
deny of God, God doesn't have temporal succession of life. He doesn't endure a linear progression 
of time along with his creation and creatures. If temporal succession 
of life is denied of God, so then must all those experience, 
such as, so then must be all those experiences, such as emotional 
change, that require time. So, the biblical witness, next 
we'll just look at here briefly at these things, the revelatory 
condescension of God with respect to the doctrine of impassibility. 
In the revelation of himself, God, as creator, speaks to us 
in such a way that we, as creatures, might understand. We'll look 
at a text here in a moment with regards to this. But in the revelation 
of himself, God speaks to us in such a way that we, as creatures, 
might understand. Dozel says God always meets us 
with his revelation. In the conditions of our creaturehood, 
For example, if you turn with me to Genesis 6-6, this is one 
of those texts that the extreme passibilists and even the contemporary 
impassibilists will go to to argue for the fact that God can 
change with respect to his emotive states. Notice in Genesis 6-6 
we have this reaction to the sinfulness of man and we read, 
well, beginning at verse 5. Then the Lord saw that the wickedness 
of man was great in the earth and that every intent of the 
thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord 
was sorry that he had made man on the earth and he was grieved 
in his heart. So here we have the narrative 
portion here of the early years and decades. centuries of creation, 
man falls into sin and the sinfulness grows, the wickedness grows exponentially 
and we see here what reads to be a reaction from God in the 
face of human sin and the narrative reads again the Lord was sorry 
that he had made man on the earth and he was grieved in his heart. Speaking with respect to revelatory 
condescension and what's going on in here because we've already 
read elsewhere of God's immutability. We've already read that he is 
not like a man that he should lie nor a son of man that he 
should relent. Speaking with regards to this, 
this is John Calvin on Genesis 6.6, the repentance which is 
here ascribed to God does not properly belong to him. And that's 
a very important word to remember in this discussion, does not 
properly belong to him. So in the Bible, in this revelatory 
condescension that we find in our Bibles, we have God revealing, 
meeting us in our creaturehood in a couple of ways. He predicates 
things of himself properly and improperly in the Bible. All 
of these are what we would call analogical predication. He's 
saying things about himself by using the likeness between two 
dissimilar things. So, and he does that properly 
and improperly. Here it's improperly. And what 
we mean by that is not that he does it negatively or that it's 
a bad thing, but simply that he's communicating a truth about 
himself by using something that actually is not characteristic 
of himself and does not truly belong to him. In this case, 
the grieving of his heart. So Calvin says, the repentance 
which is here ascribed to God does not properly belong to him. 
but has reference to our understanding of him. For since we cannot comprehend 
him as he is, it is necessary that for our sakes he should, 
in a certain sense, transform himself. That repentance cannot 
take place in God easily appears from this single consideration 
that nothing happens which is by him unexpected or unforeseen." 
You see, we have maybe four possibilities here with regards to Genesis 
6-6. Either God Either, first off, 
God has not decreed all things, and he does not know the future. 
That's one option, which is absolutely heretical, open theism. He has 
not decreed all things, and he does not know the future. So 
he arrives at this wickedness. He's beholding the wickedness 
of the earth. He didn't decree that to happen, and he didn't 
know that it would happen, and so he responds. He's disturbed 
and excited unto this grieving in his heart. We have a second 
option. God has not decreed all things, 
but he does know all things. And in knowing all things, he 
knew that he would arrive at this paining of his heart, but 
obviously he couldn't prevent it because it was something that 
he decreed. We have a third option. God has decreed all things, including 
his own grieving of his heart. So he decrees all things, and 
before the foundation of the world, not only did he decree 
the actions of men, et cetera, but he also decreed his own emotional 
responses to those things, which seems, in a sense, disingenuous, 
because when we actually read about things with respect to 
God, it is just something that he decreed, as if he can decree 
his own actions in time and in history. Or we have the fourth 
option, God engages in revelatory condescension, accommodating 
himself to our finite understanding. And I think that's very simple 
to understand. Gill also says, not that repentance, 
properly speaking, you see the upholding of this language by 
our Baptist brother. Not that repentance, properly 
speaking, can fall upon God, for he never changes his mind 
or alters his purposes, though he sometimes changes the course 
and dispensations of his providence. This is speaking by an anthropopathy 
after the manner of men because God determined to do and did 
something similar to men when they repent of anything. As a 
potter when he has formed a vessel that does not please him and 
he repents that he has made it. He takes it and breaks it in 
pieces. And so God, because of man's wickedness, and to show 
his aversion to it and displicency at it, repented of his making 
him. That is, he resolved within himself to destroy him, as in 
the next verse, which explains this, grieved at his heart. This 
is to be understood by the same figure as before, for there can 
no more be any uneasiness in his mind than a change in it. 
For God is a simple being, uncompounded, and not subject to any passions 
or affections. So, just as we close up here, 
in God's revelatory condescension, we have again God condescending 
in his infiniteness, in his infinity, to our finiteness, in lisping, 
as it were, to us, creator to creature. And in revelation, 
we have these two things. We have anthropomorphisms, and 
anthropopathisms. In that revelatory condescension, 
remember what we've had occasion to note before. God says, speaking 
of himself in many occasions from Exodus, Deuteronomy, the 
revisiting of this truth in the prophets and in the Psalms, I 
with an outstretched arm redeemed you from out of bondage in Egypt. 
When we read that, I don't think there are any Christians who 
actually would say God has a physical arm that he reaches out with 
and redeems people from bondage in Egypt. No Christian in their 
right mind would say that God has an arm, a physical arm that 
he uses to redeem. We have the Bible speaking with 
regards to the actually in the In Genesis, we have, actually 
right here, Genesis 6, 8, but Noah found grace in the eyes 
of the Lord. So does that mean that God has 
physical eyes? Well, of course he doesn't. But 
the Bible, God in his revelation accommodates himself to our understanding. So we understand and we hold 
to and we can believe easily anthropomorphisms. So why is 
it then that when we come to God being grieved in his heart 
or later on in Revelation in Isaiah 42 when we read God saying, 
I will cry out like a woman in labor, I will pant and gasp after 
you, we have this idea that God actually does those things. Anthropomorphism, 
again, the attribution of human form or behavior to something, 
Anthropopathism, ascription of human passions or feelings to 
a being or a being not human, in this case God. And the Bible 
uses both of these. If we reject, if we uphold anthropomorphism 
but reject anthropopathism, by what interpretive rule are we 
doing that? How can we not say that God has arms properly but 
then say that God can actually be pained in his heart? It's 
an inconsistent hermeneutic that Flies in the face of God's self-revelation 
of himself in the scriptures and in other places so God's 
revelatory Condescension God accommodates himself to our own 
condition and then just to close because we want to move to questions 
and such The theological and practical benefits and we can 
talk more about this later Or if you'd want you can email me 
but three things it protects the uniqueness and the glory 
of the incarnation of Jesus Christ, impassibility does. One man has 
written, passableist viewpoints wreak total havoc upon the authentic 
Christian gospel. Because they can have the propensity 
to, or they can arrive at, though most people would not go here 
nor intend to, but it steals from the uniqueness and the glory 
of the incarnation of Jesus Christ. Secondly, impassibility is a 
source of great comfort to our weak and weary souls. In our 
suffering, in our afflictions, we don't want a God who's suffering 
with us. We don't want a God who is crying 
and weeping with us uncontrollably at the loss of a loved one or 
whatever it might be. But we want a God who is most 
absolute, most loving, the rock of our comfort, our refuge. When we're in the pouring rain 
and we're suffering by the rain plummeting down into us, We don't 
run to a place where it's raining even more. We run into a refuge 
where there is a roof over our heads where we can be protected 
from the downpour. It is a great source of comfort 
not to have a God who suffers with us, but who comes to us 
in our suffering as the one who can help us. We don't want a 
God who has an emotional life. We are emotional wrecks who have 
emotional lives. We need the God who doesn't have 
one. and impassibility fuels our doxology. When we have a 
proper understanding of our impassible God that fuels our doxology, 
and here's a very important qualification, the opposite of a God who does 
not have passions and emotions understood properly as to disturb, 
to excite, to suffer, to undergo change, is not a God of cold, 
inert immobility who is unaffected in the sense or who somehow has 
no affection or no heart for his people. This opposition is 
almost either God feels and has emotions or he's cold and inert. We might say this, the immobility, 
the fact that God can't be moved with regards to divine impassibility, 
is not that he's like an unfeeling rock, but it's that he is so 
purely actual in his being that he cannot be moved to further 
or lesser acts of love or mercy and that sort of a thing. Because 
God is pure love, because God is loving in virtue of God, and 
God is pure act, the reason that he's he can't be moved is because 
he's so purely loving. He is most loving. And so we 
can have confidence that we don't have a God who ebb and flows 
in his love, but rather who is always most loving, who's always 
most kind and most merciful. Well, let's close in prayer. 
And then if there's any questions, please feel free to ask. God, 
we do rejoice in this truth. We rejoice in your revelation 
to us wherein you disclose to us a God who is most loving, 
who is most absolute, most gracious, most merciful. And we rejoice 
in the fact that you cannot change. And we thank you that we do have 
that rock of all comfort. We do not have one that suffers 
as men suffer, but one who is wholly immutable and who comes 
to us and helps us in our suffering. And we pray that you'd cause 
us to rejoice in the truth of who you are, in your being, in 
your essence, the plenitude of perfections that we know you've 
disclosed to us. And we pray that daily we would 
rejoice in you and that we would even daily grow in the grace 
and in the knowledge of you through Jesus Christ our Lord. And it's 
in his name that we pray. Amen.