Comments on: Apathy rules. Is God impassible?

By: clayboy » Christ: divinity, humanity and reconciliation

clayboy » Christ: divinity, humanity and reconciliation — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 12:36:47 +0000

[...] God is often anthropomorphised and narrated as living in history. (The clash is sharpest around the idea of impassibility.) Yet it is also implicit at least in some of the claims in second Isaiah or Job, for [...]

By: Bad Boy Bible Study meets Ship of Fools | lingamish

Bad Boy Bible Study meets Ship of Fools | lingamish — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 07:23:52 +0000

[...] Doug Chaplin [...]

By: clayboy » Impassibility once more: the God who is not passive

clayboy » Impassibility once more: the God who is not passive — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 19:12:42 +0000

[...] probably not a coincidence that two of the main responses arguing against my views on God’s impassibility have come from OT scholars: John Anderson in the comments there, and now Joseph Kelly in a new [...]

By: Joseph Kelly

Joseph Kelly — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 02:50:10 +0000

You will probably receive a pingback, but I wanted to let you know that I interacted with some of your thoughts in this post on my own blog. I appreciated some of what you said, although I, like John, think that impassibility is something to be rejected when we are speaking about God. I hope that my tone was charitable.

By: Pay No Attention to the God Behind the Curtain! « כל־האדם

Pay No Attention to the God Behind the Curtain! « כל־האדם — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 02:25:22 +0000

[...] the Curtain! Posted in Uncategorized by Joseph Kelly on August 1, 2009 Doug Chaplin, a.k.a. Clayboy, has recently raised the issue of our understanding of God and impassibility. I would like to [...]

By: John Anderson

John Anderson — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 19:51:08 +0000

Doug:

Poignaintly put.

Chaos is entirely relevant. As you say, chaos happens, and that then may result in questions about the character, nature, etc. of God.

To expand, briefly, on what I’ve said here: I think it is possible for God to have pathos yet still be God. Still have power. Still have and exhibit the creative impulse. Still struggle with humanity. Win sometimes . . . . lose others. At bottom, I’m able to hold these extremes together because the Hebrew Bible holds them together, tensions and all. And, as I’ve said on my own blog, God is thus a paradox.

(sorry for the lack of solid substance—it’s a Friday).

By: clayboy

clayboy — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:46:01 +0000

If my memory serves me, didn’t Aquinas think that some language e,g, “father” was technically used at the ontological level literally of God and analogically of people, but that we discovered that truth through using the word metaphorically at a linguistic level.

By: Ryan Mullins

Ryan Mullins — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:28:57 +0000

I would suggest being careful with the claim that all language about God is metaphorical and analogical. Not everyone in Church history thought that, nor do some contemporary philosophical theologians (e.g. Anselm and Richard Swinburne). Also, Pseudo-Dionysius and Aquinas both have much more sophisticated accounts of language about God where not everything predicated of God is metaphorical and analogical. From what I understand Pseudo-Dionysius’ account of language about the divine is heavily dependent upon several positive literal claims about God such as divine infinity and divine simplicity. (see Timothy Knepper, “Three Misuses of Dionysius for Comparative Theology,” Religious Studies 45, 2009, 209. Also available at philpapers.org)

By: clayboy

clayboy — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:18:42 +0000

John. Maybe you could post on this a bit more, and we could see how we go. BTW I’m not sure why chaos is relevant to your argument. I believe shit happens too.

By: John Anderson

John Anderson — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 15:35:42 +0000

Doug:

Thanks for the post. Here’s my response:

Is God impassible? No. (But I suspect you already knew I’d say that). And, this need not call into question God’s power, creative impulse, etc. It just means chaos happens, and that God is deeply and intimately affected by creation.