Impassibility of God

[Whatever]

Classic theism teaches that God is impassible — not subject to suffering, pain, or the ebb and flow of involuntary passions. In the words of the Westminster Confession of Faith, God is "without body, parts, or passions, immutable."

This one almost seems counterintuitive to what we read in the Bible when God says He is jealous, angry, sorry He made man and other things.

I'm getting the following paragraph from https://www.theopedia.com

It is important to note that the debate regarding the doctrine of impassibility does not center on whether God has feelings or emotions. Though some would argue for the position that God does not possess any feelings or passions, those such as Paul Helm who seek to preserve impassibility do not view God as completely apathetic. Rather, the question is whether or not God's passions are voluntary or involuntary. Does God actually react to his creation in an emotional way? Can humanity hurt God, emotionally?

What do ya think?

 

[Arial]

Classic theism teaches that God is impassible — not subject to suffering, pain, or the ebb and flow of involuntary passions. In the words of the Westminster Confession of Faith, God is "without body, parts, or passions, immutable."

This one almost seems counterintuitive to what we read in the Bible when God says He is jealous, angry, sorry He made man and other things.

I'm getting the following paragraph from https://www.theopedia.com

It is important to note that the debate regarding the doctrine of impassibility does not center on whether God has feelings or emotions. Though some would argue for the position that God does not possess any feelings or passions, those such as Paul Helm who seek to preserve impassibility do not view God as completely apathetic. Rather, the question is whether or not God's passions are voluntary or involuntary. Does God actually react to his creation in an emotional way? Can humanity hurt God, emotionally?

What do ya think?

That will take a lot of careful thought. I hope the thread expands with views and and contributions. It is a first for the forum as far as I know.

I think that when the Bible speaks of God being sorry, angry, jealous etc. it is anthropomorphic language to some degree, in order to convey a point or message. Men have to speak the things of God in human language, so humans can understand. But I do not think it solves the entire message.

Connected to it is the fact that God is so other than us, that those same words, sorry, angry, jealous, when attributed to God, have nuances and depth our minds cannot connect to. Just as his justice and his love do. We know he is immutable, so his emotions never involve ebbing and flowing and one attribute never lessens or increases by the expression of any of the others. All his attributes are equally full and holy no matter what he is doing or feeling.

Does he react to his creation in an emotional way? He doesn't react to his creation at all. He interacts in and with it. Can humanity hurt God emotionally? I would be hard pressed to think so. He does not hold the position of being hurt emotionally. He governs all, knows all, has all power is present everywhere. He commands things from us---full obedience and worship and loyalty. He has never been surprised.

I don't know if that was a fully cogent answer, but it is very difficult to find the words (at least for me) to express what my mind attempts to touch (and is out of reach).

 

[ElectedbyHim]

Here are the different views of impassibility.

I will also be digging into R.C. Sproul and John Frame at some point.

The Reformed view is strict Impassibility from what I am reading thus far.

From Gemini.....

Strict Classical Impassibility:

Core View: God does not experience emotional changes of state, nor can He be passively affected or made to suffer by anything external to Himself. His being is perfect, immutable (unchanging), and fully actualized (no potential for change).

Interpretation of Scripture: Passages describing God's emotions (anger, grief, joy, regret) are seen as anthropomorphisms – ways of accommodating human understanding by describing God's unchanging character, will, and actions in relatable human terms. For example, God's "anger" is His settled, holy opposition to sin, not a fluctuating human passion. His "relenting" (e.g., Exodus 32:14) reflects a change in His actions based on changed human circumstances (like repentance or intercession appealing to His own promises), not a change in His eternal nature or plan.

Theological Basis: Rooted in concepts of divine perfection, immutability, aseity (self-sufficiency), and simplicity (God is not composed of parts that can change relative to each other). If God could be changed by creation, He wouldn't be supremely perfect or sovereign.

Proponents: This view has been dominant historically, found in many Church Fathers (like Augustine), medieval Scholastics (like Aquinas), and strongly affirmed in historic Reformed theology (like the Westminster Confession of Faith) and by many classical theists today.

Modified Impassibility / Qualified Passibility:

Core View: This perspective seeks a middle ground. It affirms God's essential immutability (His core being, character, and eternal decrees do not change) but allows that God, in His freedom and love, chooses to enter into genuine relationships with His creation and, in doing so, chooses to be affected by them in some way. God's engagement with the world involves genuine responsiveness.

Interpretation of Scripture: Takes the biblical descriptions of God's emotions more literally than the strict view, seeing them as reflecting real aspects of God's relational life with His people, without implying that God is controlled or overwhelmed by these "affections" as creatures are. The "affections" might be understood as perfect divine analogues to human emotions, consistent with His nature.

Theological Basis: Attempts to balance divine perfection/immutability with the biblical emphasis on God's relationality, covenant faithfulness, love, and responsiveness to prayer and human action. Distinguishes between God's unchanging essential being and His dynamic relational operations.

Proponents: Found among many contemporary theologians across various traditions (including some modern Reformed thinkers) who find strict impassibility potentially unrelational or inadequate to the biblical witness, but still want to uphold God's sovereignty and fundamental unchangeableness.

Rejection of Impassibility / Belief in Divine Passibility:

Core View: God genuinely experiences emotions and suffering, analogous (though perhaps infinitely deeper or purer) to human experiences. God's love inherently involves vulnerability and being affected by the beloved. God truly empathizes and suffers with His creation.

Interpretation of Scripture: Takes biblical language about God's grief, joy, anger, compassion, and regret largely at face value, seeing them as revelations of God's true inner life. Christ's suffering is seen as the ultimate revelation of God's willingness and capacity to suffer.

Theological Basis: Emphasizes God's love, relationality, and solidarity with humanity, particularly in suffering. Critiques classical impassibility as being overly influenced by Greek philosophy (which valued apathy/detachment) rather than the Hebrew Bible's portrayal of a dynamic, involved God. Argues that a God who cannot suffer cannot truly love or empathize.

Proponents: Prominent in much 20th and 21st-century theology. Figures like Jürgen Moltmann ("The Crucified God"), Kazoh Kitamori ("Theology of the Pain of God"), Abraham Joshua Heschel ("Divine Pathos"), process theologians (though they often modify other attributes too), and many liberation and feminist theologians emphasize divine passibility. (Note: This view must be distinguished from the ancient heresy of Patripassianism, which claimed the Father suffered on the cross).

Key Point of Contention: The Incarnation

How each view understands the suffering of Jesus Christ is often central:

Strict Impassibility: Christ suffered intensely, but only in His human nature. The divine nature, united to the human, remained impassible.

Modified/Passibilist Views: Often argue that in Christ, God the Son entered into human suffering in a way that reveals something true about God's capacity for compassion or even suffering within the Godhead (as Moltmann argues regarding the Father's grief and the Spirit's empathy during the crucifixion).

In summary, the views range from God being completely unaffected emotionally by creation (Strict Impassibility), to God choosing to be relationally affected while remaining essentially unchanged (Modified Impassibility), to God genuinely experiencing emotions and suffering as part of His loving relationship with the world (Divine Passibility). Your Reformed background historically aligns strongly with the first view, but contemporary discussions exist across all traditions.

 

[ElectedbyHim]

This will be a tough one and as @Arial said will require a lot of careful thought.

Scripture has much to say on God's emotions.

Anger
Compassion
Joy
Jealousy
Love
Grief
Hate

Looks like I will be hitting the books.

 

[makesends]

Classic theism teaches that God is impassible — not subject to suffering, pain, or the ebb and flow of involuntary passions. In the words of the Westminster Confession of Faith, God is "without body, parts, or passions, immutable."

This one almost seems counterintuitive to what we read in the Bible when God says He is jealous, angry, sorry He made man and other things.

I'm getting the following paragraph from https://www.theopedia.com

It is important to note that the debate regarding the doctrine of impassibility does not center on whether God has feelings or emotions. Though some would argue for the position that God does not possess any feelings or passions, those such as Paul Helm who seek to preserve impassibility do not view God as completely apathetic. Rather, the question is whether or not God's passions are voluntary or involuntary. Does God actually react to his creation in an emotional way? Can humanity hurt God, emotionally?

What do ya think?

We see everything backwards.

As to the "passions", I can't prove it but I think when the old English speaks of passions, they are feelings (usually) that 'happen to us' (I say for lack of a better way to put it. God is not controlled by his feelings. He is not subject to them in the same sense that we are. They come from him as much- and as little-planned as any other of his deeds. He does not find himself suddenly angry. He is not, as those who insist on self-determinism would accuse others of us of teaching, irritable, peevish, petulant, nor is he capricious or reactionary. He is very particular and purposing, without it being merely because of what some other being has done.

But that and the rest of the question --body, parts, passions, immutable, pain, suffering-- as how the Bible presents God to us in places, seemingly contradicting other places, is generally God presenting himself in a way that humans can identify with or at least to accept. What is exceedingly funny about it, to me, and beautiful, is that God does so, without in any way misrepresenting himself. WE are the ones that take those words to mean what WE have experienced, when, in fact, they are indeed true words, but not what WE think they are. For example, God's 'feelings' are not like ours. Instead, it is our feelings that are like his, (only not very much). God's anger is not because he feels pain. But both his 'pain' and his 'anger' are because of the encroachment of sin upon his infinite purity; as such, his pain and his anger are infinite, but they are not uncontrolled, nor do they "happen to him".

I would get more into why I repeat that "things don't happen to him", but this will go long if I do. That has to do with several of his Attributes, the most obvious, I think, being Aseity. His Impassibility is tied to his Aseity, but both of those are logically descended from his Omnipotence. Theological Philosophy has done some good work through the few thousand years it has been in play, and "Impassibility" is truly a lucent conclusion; I would say it was one of my favorites, except that they are all my favorites. But it is easy to mistake what is meant by the definitions.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Classic theism teaches that God is impassible — not subject to suffering, pain, or the ebb and flow of involuntary passions. In the words of the Westminster Confession of Faith, God is "without body, parts, or passions, immutable."

This one almost seems counterintuitive to what we read in the Bible when God says He is jealous, angry, sorry He made man and other things.

I'm getting the following paragraph from https://www.theopedia.com

It is important to note that the debate regarding the doctrine of impassibility does not center on whether God has feelings or emotions. Though some would argue for the position that God does not possess any feelings or passions, those such as Paul Helm who seek to preserve impassibility do not view God as completely apathetic. Rather, the question is whether or not God's passions are voluntary or involuntary. Does God actually react to his creation in an emotional way? Can humanity hurt God, emotionally?

What do ya think?

This is really about understanding definitions and how the language was perceived and intended to be perceived amongst the original audience.

When we get angry it's caused and we are reacting/reactive to an external force. God is impassable in the sense of changing or being moved by something external to ones self as God is unchanging.

I found a well written and sourced article (the writer speaks the right language to start conversation) to share on the topic from which I will select a few quotes to add benefit of a better understanding of the concepts found in Scripture:

​

[MOD EDIT: The following material is from Matt Marino, Instructor of Theology for New Aberdeen College in Charlotte, North Carolina, and pastor of Grace Church in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church in Winter Springs, Florida.]​

​

"one of the great Patristic scholars of the modern era, G. L. Prestige [said]:

It is clear that impassibility means not that God is inactive or uninterested, not that he surveys existence with Epicurean impassibility from the shelter of a metaphysical isolation, but that his will is determined from within instead of being swayed from without. It safeguards the truth that the impulse alike in providential order and in redemption and sanctification come from the will of God [2]."

And.to interject a point made by Matt Marino in the article that @DialecticSkeptic wanted to be certain wasn't missed by any reader here:

The response by J. I. Packer to this notion, that the will of God is not "swayed from without," is instructive and important and therefore should be included. Packer notes that when classical theologians speak of God's impassibility, they do not mean "that he is impassive and unfeeling, but that what he feels—like what he does—is a matter of his own deliberate, voluntary choice and is included in the unity of his infinite being. God is never our victim in the sense that we make him suffer where he had not first chosen to suffer" (emphasis added).

"Note the difference," Marino instructed his readers, "between how Packer said that, as opposed to Prestige's statement: ‘that his will is determined from within instead of being swayed from without.’ Both are saying that God's emotive, valuative, and volitional life come from within God's eternal life, but Prestige fences that off to any ad extra causation, including subsequent, divinely chosen, ad extra causation." Packer caught that problematic idea and corrected it.

Continuing now with a couple more article quotations.written by Pastor Marino:

"Divine impassibility is taught in Scripture. For example, “God is love” (1 Jn. 4:8)—not simply that God has love in the sense of experiencing a possession of it, but rather an “everlasting love” (Jer. 31:3). And He is “a God who feels indignation every day” (Ps. 7:11). Unlike beings who may gain and lose and yet still be, for God to be love and simply to be are one and the same. This is an early clue that impassibility, far from denying the living God, is the raging fountain of all that we call feeling.

The impassibility of God had certainly been the testimony of the early church, the medieval church, and the Protestant Scholastics and Puritans retained it. Anselm argued that, “when we state that God undergoes some lowliness or weakness, we understand this to be in accordance with the weakness of the human substance which he assumed [in incarnation], not in accordance with the sublimity of his impassible [divine] nature”

Scripture reveals the difference between the disposition and the exercise because our concern is not to ponder the simplicity of God alone at every point. Our business is in learning to love what God loves and hate what God hates, and so Scripture reveals the divine approval and disapproval at an active point in historical narrative so that we can view the moral line between God’s disposition and the moral action in the narrative. But should we call these perfections in God “emotions” at all?

One scholar writes, “God’s repentance is not an emotion of his Being but a change of treatment towards mankind from a human point of view. Thus, as to God’s love and all other emotions—jealously, hate, etc., we then must say that they are an analogy of our emotion”[14]. Paul Helm even coins the term “Themotion” [15], combining the Greek word for “God” and the suffix that speaks of motion, but is careful to say no more than would already be affirmed by actus purus."

Divine Impassibility — The Reformed Classicalist

That God is in “process” is a basic foundational assumption in modern theology. Being in a process, or, in other words, a subjective experience that passes from one limited state to another, is thought to be the very essence of personhood. But it may also be that the existentialist’s explicit maxim

www.reformedclassicalist.com

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Modified Impassibility / Qualified Passibility:

Core View: This perspective seeks a middle ground. It affirms God's essential immutability (His core being, character, and eternal decrees do not change) but allows that God, in His freedom and love, chooses to enter into genuine relationships with His creation and, in doing so, chooses to be affected by them in some way. God's engagement with the world involves genuine responsiveness.

...

Rejection of Impassibility / Belief in Divine Passibility:

Core View: God genuinely experiences emotions and suffering, analogous (though perhaps infinitely deeper or purer) to human experiences. God's love inherently involves vulnerability and being affected by the beloved. God truly empathizes and suffers with His creation.

WARNING: I just want to quickly and briefly point out for the readers (and open it up for discussion) that these views are, or lead to, open theism and process theology, which are heretical views. Terms like "affected by them in some way" and "being affected by the beloved" suggest a God who is changed by the actions of man—thus also denying immutability and more, including aseity and omniscience—which fundamentally undermine the Creator-creature distinction and deny orthodox doctrines of God.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I found a well written and sourced article (the writer speaks the right language to start conversation) to share on the topic ...

That is a fantastic article, Hazelelponi. Thank you for sharing it.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

[Here, Matt Marino is quoting G. L. Prestige]:

"It is clear that impassibility means not that God is inactive or uninterested, not that he surveys existence with Epicurean impassibility from the shelter of a metaphysical isolation, but that his will is determined from within instead of being swayed from without. It safeguards the truth that the impulse alike in providential order and in redemption and sanctification come from the will of God."

The response by J. I. Packer to this notion, that the will of God is not "swayed from without," is instructive and important and therefore should be included. Packer notes that when classical theologians speak of God's impassibility, they do not mean "that he is impassive and unfeeling, but that what he feels—like what he does—is a matter of his own deliberate, voluntary choice and is included in the unity of his infinite being. God is never our victim in the sense that we make him suffer where he had not first chosen to suffer" (emphasis added).

"Note the difference," Marino instructed his readers, "between how Packer said that, as opposed to Prestige's statement: ‘that his will is determined from within instead of being swayed from without.’ Both are saying that God's emotive, valuative, and volitional life come from within God's eternal life, but Prestige fences that off to any ad extra causation, including subsequent, divinely chosen, ad extra causation." Packer caught that problematic idea and corrected it.

 

[Hazelelponi]

The response by J. I. Packer to this notion, that the will of God is not "swayed from without," is instructive and important and therefore should be included. Packer notes that when classical theologians speak of God's impassibility, they do not mean "that he is impassive and unfeeling, but that what he feels—like what he does—is a matter of his own deliberate, voluntary choice and is included in the unity of his infinite being. God is never our victim in the sense that we make him suffer where he had not first chosen to suffer" (emphasis added).

"Note the difference," Marino instructed his readers, "between how Packer said that, as opposed to Prestige's statement: ‘that his will is determined from within instead of being swayed from without.’ Both are saying that God's emotive, valuative, and volitional life come from within God's eternal life, but Prestige fences that off to any ad extra causation, including subsequent, divinely chosen, ad extra causation." Packer caught that problematic idea and corrected it.

Edit to add, I went ahead and edited my post to add your point to make sure it's not missed.

Original.

With articles like this I have a difficult time trying to quote with some brevity, I always want to quote the whole thing,!!

But you are correct that it should be pointed out, would you like me to add this to my post as well? Or do you suppose your post is enough to bring the point forward?

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

With articles like this I have a difficult time trying to quote with some brevity, I always want to quote the whole thing,!!

But you are correct that it should be pointed out, would you like me to add this to my post as well? Or do you suppose your post is enough to bring the point forward?

I think my addition is sufficient. And your post was fine as-is; no need to add to it.

But feel free to subsequently post additional quotes from the article that you think showcase an important point to consider.

 

[Whatever]

Just messing around, I went to the Monergism web site and searched for it. There are about 58 articles on it.
Just scroll down the page it takes you to.

Search | Monergism

Monergism.com is a free, comprehensive online theological library comprised of Reformed Christian resources designed to bring glory to Jesus Christ alone.

www.monergism.com

 

[ReverendRV]

Classic theism teaches that God is impassible — not subject to suffering, pain, or the ebb and flow of involuntary passions. In the words of the Westminster Confession of Faith, God is "without body, parts, or passions, immutable."

This one almost seems counterintuitive to what we read in the Bible when God says He is jealous, angry, sorry He made man and other things.

I'm getting the following paragraph from https://www.theopedia.com

It is important to note that the debate regarding the doctrine of impassibility does not center on whether God has feelings or emotions. Though some would argue for the position that God does not possess any feelings or passions, those such as Paul Helm who seek to preserve impassibility do not view God as completely apathetic. Rather, the question is whether or not God's passions are voluntary or involuntary. Does God actually react to his creation in an emotional way? Can humanity hurt God, emotionally?

What do ya think?

Do you think this Passage can speak to God's Impassability?

Luke 13:6-9; Then he told this parable: “A man had a fig tree growing in his vineyard, and he went to look for fruit on it but did not find any. So he said to the man who took care of the vineyard, ‘For three years now I’ve been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and haven’t found any. Cut it down! Why should it use up the soil?’

“‘Sir,’ the man replied, ‘leave it alone for one more year, and I’ll dig around it and fertilize it. If it bears fruit next year, fine! If not, then cut it down.’”


The Man who wants the tree cut down is God the Father. The tree is Israel. He wants the Apple of his Eye cut down But the Gardener wants to Dung the Tree first; he is Jesus...

So the Father is Impassable, he would kill Israel just like that. Is Jesus passionate because he is God or because he's Man?

 

[Arial]

WARNING: I just want to quickly and briefly point out for the readers (and open it up for discussion) that these views are, or lead to, open theism and process theology, which are heretical views. Terms like "affected by them in some way" and "being affected by the beloved" suggest a God who is changed by the actions of man—thus also denying immutability and more, including aseity and omniscience—which fundamentally undermine the Creator-creature distinction and deny orthodox doctrines of God.

Absolutely it does. And this:


Rejection of Impassibility / Belief in Divine Passibility:

Core View: God genuinely experiences emotions and suffering, analogous (though perhaps infinitely deeper or purer) to human experiences. God's love inherently involves vulnerability and being affected by the beloved. God truly empathizes and suffers with His creation.

Interpretation of Scripture: Takes biblical language about God's grief, joy, anger, compassion, and regret largely at face value, seeing them as revelations of God's true inner life. Christ's suffering is seen as the ultimate revelation of God's willingness and capacity to suffer.

Theological Basis: Emphasizes God's love, relationality, and solidarity with humanity, particularly in suffering. Critiques classical impassibility as being overly influenced by Greek philosophy (which valued apathy/detachment) rather than the Hebrew Bible's portrayal of a dynamic, involved God. Argues that a God who cannot suffer cannot truly love or empathise.

Is full blown Open Theism. Elements of it are rampant in today's church and we see it on this forum and others forums all the time. Even when Open Theism is denied. It exists in the Arminianism of today. The emphasis on God's love, having it override all God's other attributes. It truly is remaking God in our own image. It is trying to believe two conflicting things (or three or four or five) at the same time. Have your cake and eat it to, as my mother would say.

 

[fastfredy0]

Rather, the question is whether or not God's passions are voluntary or involuntary. Does God actually react to his creation in an emotional way? Can humanity hurt God, emotionally?

What do ya think?

God has NO CAUSE and is the First Cause of all things.
The Law of Causality states every effect has a cause. God is eternal which is necessary to exclude him from being an effect.
God is immutable from which we conclude He is not changed by anything.

Job 35:7 “If you are righteous, what do you give God, Or what does He receive from your hand?
8 “Your wickedness affects only a man such as you, And your righteousness affects only a son of man [but it cannot affect God, who is sovereign].

The Divine nature cannot be increased; for whatsoever receives anything than what it had in itself before, must necessarily receive it from another, because nothing can give to itself that which it hath not. But God cannot receive from another what he hath not already, because whatsoever other things possess is derived from him, and, therefore, contained in him, as the fountain contains the virtue which it conveys to the streams; so that God cannot gain anything. Charnock, Stephen. The Existence and Attributes of God. Kindle Edition.

• Romans 11:36 For from Him [all things originate] and through Him [all things live and exist] and to Him are all things [directed]. To Him be glory and honor forever! Amen.
• 1 Chronicles 29:14 "Who am I, and what is my people, that we should be able to offer so willingly after this sort? for all things come of thee, and of thine own have we given thee".
• Goodness in other things can only be derived because a creature being made of nothing, cannot be good, or essentially good, but by participation from another.
• Job 22:2 “Can a vigorous man be of use to God, Or a wise man be useful to himself? 3 “Is it any pleasure or joy to the Almighty that you are righteous? Or is it of benefit to Him that you make your ways perfect?
• Job 41:11 Who has first given to Me, that I should repay him? Whatever is under the whole heavens is Mine.
• Acts 17:25 nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, because it is He who gives to all [people] life and breath and all things

Verses referring to God having emotions (change in state) are anthropomorphic

Yada, yada

 

[Arial]

Theological Basis: Emphasizes God's love, relationality, and solidarity with humanity, particularly in suffering. Critiques classical impassibility as being overly influenced by Greek philosophy (which valued apathy/detachment) rather than the Hebrew Bible's portrayal of a dynamic, involved God. Argues that a God who cannot suffer cannot truly love or empathize.

The theological basis given here is not really a biblical theological basis at all, but an opinion of who God must be. It does not support itself theologically but instead attempts to discredit Classical Impassibilty by invoking something outside of the Bible----Greek philosophy---and make the claim that Classical Impassibility valued apathy/detachment. It does this (at least here) without giving any evidence of the truthfulness of the statement. And it misrepresents it as saying something that it is not saying. This could be from perceptions of what it says or deliberate. If it is the first, it is simply how they would view a God who was not like the one they have arrived at. A poorly developed or inconsistent, Doctrine of God obtained from God's own statements concerning himself in Scripture.

 

[makesends]

WARNING: I just want to quickly and briefly point out for the readers (and open it up for discussion) that these views are, or lead to, open theism and process theology, which are heretical views. Terms like "affected by them in some way" and "being affected by the beloved" suggest a God who is changed by the actions of man—thus also denying immutability and more, including aseity and omniscience—which fundamentally undermine the Creator-creature distinction and deny orthodox doctrines of God.

I agree. From plain reason, the assertion is vapid, being drawn on mere presumption, that somehow Almighty God, whose omnipotence necessarily means impassibility, can somehow be affected from without. The notion that, as these say, that this is the only way of "real relationship" between God and man is a purely man-lifting proposition, as if we operate on God's level, or he on ours.

 

[makesends]

God has NO CAUSE and is the First Cause of all things.
The Law of Causality states every effect has a cause. God is eternal which is necessary to exclude him from being an effect.
God is immutable from which we conclude He is not changed by anything.

Job 35:7 “If you are righteous, what do you give God, Or what does He receive from your hand?
8 “Your wickedness affects only a man such as you, And your righteousness affects only a son of man [but it cannot affect God, who is sovereign].

The Divine nature cannot be increased; for whatsoever receives anything than what it had in itself before, must necessarily receive it from another, because nothing can give to itself that which it hath not. But God cannot receive from another what he hath not already, because whatsoever other things possess is derived from him, and, therefore, contained in him, as the fountain contains the virtue which it conveys to the streams; so that God cannot gain anything. Charnock, Stephen. The Existence and Attributes of God. Kindle Edition.

• Romans 11:36 For from Him [all things originate] and through Him [all things live and exist] and to Him are all things [directed]. To Him be glory and honor forever! Amen.
• 1 Chronicles 29:14 "Who am I, and what is my people, that we should be able to offer so willingly after this sort? for all things come of thee, and of thine own have we given thee".
• Goodness in other things can only be derived because a creature being made of nothing, cannot be good, or essentially good, but by participation from another.
• Job 22:2 “Can a vigorous man be of use to God, Or a wise man be useful to himself? 3 “Is it any pleasure or joy to the Almighty that you are righteous? Or is it of benefit to Him that you make your ways perfect?
• Job 41:11 Who has first given to Me, that I should repay him? Whatever is under the whole heavens is Mine.
• Acts 17:25 nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, because it is He who gives to all [people] life and breath and all things

Verses referring to God having emotions (change in state) are anthropomorphic

Yada, yada

AMEN!! (Well, not so much the yadayada, but...) God does not need us, as though we have something of value to contribute, nor in the sense that WE are the choosers of our own predestination.

The notion that I have been fed, that God can't use us unless we are willing, or can't complete his plan unless we cooperate --willingly cooperate-- is, to me, as though to say that this temporal existence is the main reason God made us.

And that's just about the nicest thing I can come up with to say about it.

 

[ReverendRV]

Yada, Yada, Yada ~ by ReverendRV * December 28

Proverbs 28:13 (NLT) People who conceal their sins will not prosper, but if they confess and turn from them, they will receive mercy.

‘Seinfeld’ was a very popular TV Sitcom; with a famous episode about our title. In the episode, the girlfriend was telling a story to one of the main characters. It went something like, “We went on a date, had a nice dinner, yada, yada, yada; then we had breakfast”. This set a trend for the whole episode to have jokes exploring what yada, yada, yada means. Obviously this is a way to conceal something embarrassing that the Teller of the Story might not want to say, or to conceal something they might not want the listener to know. They started making jokes about all the kinds of ways that this phrase can be used; you know, Yada, Yada, Yada. I don’t need to explain it more because you have probably already seen the episode. ~ Can you read between the Yada-Lines and Know?

I found something interesting as I was looking at a Bible Concordance. I was looking something else up, and just under it was the word “Know”; I couldn’t help but notice the Hebrew word for this is ‘Yada’. It immediately made me think of this episode. I wondered if there was a connection, or if this was where the phrase “Yada, Yada, Yada” came from. The similarity seems to close to not be the case. Basically people use the phrase ‘Yada, Yada, Yada’ to say, “Well; you know…”, or, “I don’t need to say it because you already know”. In my research, here is what I found out about Yada. This form of Know/Yada occurs in the Bible 947 times. It can be used in several different ways such as, to ‘Know’ by Seeing with your own eyes, to Know by Perceiving, to have Knowledge and Wisdom. You can Yada someone because they’re famous, you can Yada someone if they’re related to you, or Yada someone intimately. There are all sorts of ways you can Know/Yada someone or something…

Have you ever said something like, ‘I went to the store, and yada, yada, yada; I look great in these new jeans!’ The “yada, yada, yada” implies you don’t want me to know how you got the jeans. Or, “I snuck out of the house last night, yada, yada, yada; my parents don’t know a thing”. It conceals what you did, to keep this from your parents. We use the phrase because we think that if we don’t vocalize what we do, we won’t have to be accountable for it; ‘but God already Yada’s ALL about it’. The Psalmist said, “Even before there is a word on my tongue, Behold, O LORD, You know it all. You can’t hide what you did from God, He knows the Evil things you did. God gave us instructions to live by, which are his Ten Commandments. We know deep down in our Heart that our Sin is wrong…

For God so loved the world, he gave his only Son, so that we will not perish but have everlasting Life. God knew we couldn’t keep the Covenant he made with Adam; that’s why he sent his Son to do it. God walked this earth in the form of the Man Jesus Christ, and Kept God’s Covenants with Adam AND Moses. Jesus paid the penalty for Sin by shedding his blood and dying on a Cross, and by arising from his Grave. We’re Saved by Grace through Faith, not by Works lest we should boast as if we did it. ~ Isn’t it strange that when we want to boast, we don’t conceal it with Yada, Yada, Yadas?

Acts 2:23-24 NASB this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. "But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power

 

[ElectedbyHim]

Just messing around, I went to the Monergism web site and searched for it. There are about 58 articles on it.
Just scroll down the page it takes you to.

Search | Monergism

Monergism.com is a free, comprehensive online theological library comprised of Reformed Christian resources designed to bring glory to Jesus Christ alone.

www.monergism.com

Yep, was on there last night sifting through them.