Fun Fact, Origen explicity denied impassability in his Ezekiel commentary, and not for Christological reasons or anything like that, he denied the impassability of the Father (who he calls, in his John Commentary, Autotheos). :)
Thanks for bringing up Origen. I remember studying impassibility and reading Joseph Hallmann's book about the subject along with Robert M. Grant's Gods and the One God. Out of all the fathers, as you said, Origen stands out as denying that God (the Father) is impassible. Glad you also mentioned where he said it. :-)
"I shall take an example from the human realm, and then, if the Holy Spirit grants it, I shall pass over to Jesus Christ and God the Father. When I speak to a man and beg him to have mercy on me on account of something, if he is without mercy, he suffers nothing from what I say; but if he has a soft spirit and no stiffness of heart has hardened within him, he hears me and has mercy on me, and his viscera are softened in response to my entreaties. . . . The Father himself too—the God of the universe—who is “long-suffering and very merciful” and one who pities—does he not suffer in some way? Or are you unaware that when he manages human affairs, he suffers human passion? For “the Lord your God sustained” your ways, “just as if a man were to sustain his own son.” Therefore, God sustains our ways, just as the Son of God carries our passions. The Father himself is not impassible. 67 If he is asked, he has mercy and compassion, he “suffers” some charity, and he comes to be among those things among which he cannot be, [strictly speaking,] in view of the greatness of his nature—and he sustains human passions on our behalf.
To be honest, I have an aversion to most theistic labels. I mainly try to view God through the template of Scripture, but I obviously worship with a group of people too (known as Jehovah's Witnesses). The problem is that I see difficulties in each one of the theistic perspectives that you mentioned. Sorry I cannot be more definite in this respect.
5 comments:
Fun Fact, Origen explicity denied impassability in his Ezekiel commentary, and not for Christological reasons or anything like that, he denied the impassability of the Father (who he calls, in his John Commentary, Autotheos). :)
Thanks for bringing up Origen. I remember studying impassibility and reading Joseph Hallmann's book about the subject along with Robert M. Grant's Gods and the One God. Out of all the fathers, as you said, Origen stands out as denying that God (the Father) is impassible. Glad you also mentioned where he said it. :-)
Origen, Homilies on Ezekiel 6.6
https://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Origen-Homilies_on_Ezekiel-ed_Hooker-2014.pdf
"I shall take an example from the human realm, and then, if the
Holy Spirit grants it, I shall pass over to Jesus Christ and God the Father. When
I speak to a man and beg him to have mercy on me on account of something,
if he is without mercy, he suffers nothing from what I say; but if he has a soft
spirit and no stiffness of heart has hardened within him, he hears me and has
mercy on me, and his viscera are softened in response to my entreaties.
. . .
The Father himself too—the God of the universe—who is “long-suffering and very merciful” and one who pities—does he not suffer in some way? Or are you unaware that when he manages human affairs, he suffers human passion? For “the Lord your God sustained” your ways, “just as if a man were to sustain his own son.” Therefore, God sustains our ways, just as the Son of God carries our passions. The Father himself is not impassible. 67 If he is asked, he has mercy and compassion, he “suffers” some charity, and he comes to be among those things among which he cannot be, [strictly speaking,] in view of the greatness of his nature—and he sustains human passions on our behalf.
Hi brother Foster. What kind of theism you support? Open Theism? Classical Theism? Neoclassical Theism?
Hello Brother Naranjo,
To be honest, I have an aversion to most theistic labels. I mainly try to view God through the template of Scripture, but I obviously worship with a group of people too (known as Jehovah's Witnesses). The problem is that I see difficulties in each one of the theistic perspectives that you mentioned. Sorry I cannot be more definite in this respect.
Post a Comment