 |
| Griesbach, Germany-trekearth |
My Google Chrome version is looking best. Safari is good.
Professor van der Ven finds Moltmann’sdiscussion on the ancient view, that God is apathetic towards his creation,useful.[1] Moltmann notes the relatedGreek term ‘apatheia’ which is the idea of an irresistible force that cannot beinfluenced by outside forces.[2] Historically in early Greek times fromAristotle onwards, God was viewed as being without emotions.[3] Brian Davies (1999) notes that the term‘impassibility’ corresponds to ‘apatheia’[4] anddefines impassibility as the traditional understanding that God, the divinenature, cannot experience pain or suffering.[5] Davies believes it is incorrect to assumeGod’s impassibility should mean that the creator is indifferent or unconcernedabout his creation.[6] For Erickson, the idea of God’s divine natureas impassible is based upon the influence of ancient Greek thought rather thanScripture.[7] Erickson points out thatwith the incarnation of Christ, God the Son did experience human suffering.[8] He possessed a human nature that did sufferin life and in death, even though his divine nature coexisted with his humanone.[9] Kenneth Surin (1982) writesthat God is considered by some within orthodox Christian theology to be unableto experience pain or sorrow.[10] However, others concede that concluding Godis impassible is a questionable view within traditional thought.[11] Surin thinks that perhaps God limits hisomnipotence by identifying with human suffering.[12] Paul Helm (2006), Professor Emeritus of theUniversity of London,[13]reasons impassibility has lost intellectual support,[14]even though throughout the ages many within the Church have accepted thedoctrine.[15] Helm suggests that thedoctrine needs to be reconsidered as God is not indifferent to human suffering,[16]nor does God express emotions of anger and passion as humans do.[17] Theconcept of impassibility opens up a complex discussion beyond this thesis, butit seems reasonable God can be both all-powerful and feel negativeemotions. It should be concludedsuffering does not alter his divine attributes. Thiessen describes the immutability of Godas meaning his divine nature, attributes, consciousness, and will cannotchange.[18] Erickson explains that Goddoes not grow or develop, as there are no variations in his nature at differentpoints within his existence.[19] R.C. Sproul and Robert Wolgemuth (2000)deduce that as God is eternal he has no beginning or no end.[20] As God is understood to be eternal and beyondtime without a progression in nature, his infinite being would make a change innature and character impossible.[21] My modest proposal reasons since God isinfinite and considered immutable,[22]it is impossible for him to suffer in the exact way that human beings do. David A Pailin (1999) explains that withinsome process theology[23]approaches, God’s existence may be viewed as absolute, necessary andunchanging.[24] However, God’s character can change and isdetermined through interaction with his creation.[25] Pailin postulates that God’s character canchange, as he loves his creatures.[26] In my view, the divine nature does not have aphysical body that can be altered, changed or die, as in John 4:24 where Jesusstated that God is spirit.[27] Christ could suffer because he was both trueGod and true man,[28]but God as spirit[29]cannot suffer in human terms. Since Godis immutable,[30]any type or amount of suffering cannot alter his essential nature or being, ordivine character.[31] In contrast, suffering can definitely changethe essential nature of human beings as, for example, in the case of anamputated limb or death. Suffering canalso change the mental and spiritual well being of a person, but God would notbe altered in the same way.[32]
Erickson explains that it does seem arational possibility, however, to conclude God does have emotions, althoughthey are controlled.[33] He indicates anger is involved in the idea ofGod’s wrath in the Biblical example Romans 1:18.[34] God also has ‘agape’ love for his creatures,which is a steadfast, unselfish concern for them.[35] It is reasonable to deduce that God’s lovefor humanity is not only a decision to care for them, but also includes intenseconcern for his creation.[36] An understanding, infinite God couldcomprehend the sufferings of his finite creatures,[37]but God’s essential nature and being would not be altered by the experience ofthese feelings.[38] There is no need to conclude that thesufferings of finite creatures alter the nature of an infinite God who cancomprehend and feel those sufferings.[39] Therefore, even if, for the sake of argument,impassibility is a correct deduction concerning God’s nature,[40]Christ possessing the full nature of God[41]and a full human nature[42]enabled him to experience suffering and evil.[43] God the Son can therefore relate to humansuffering on a personal level. I reasonGod’s immutable nature does not necessarily make him impassible.
BARTH, KARL(1932-1968) Church Dogmatics, The Doctrine of the Word of God: Volume 1,Part One, Translated by J.W. Edwards, Rev. O. Bussey, and Rev. HaroldKnight, Edinburgh, T. and T. Clark.
BARTH, KARL(1932-1968) Church Dogmatics, TheDoctrine of Creation: Volumes 1 and 3. Translated by J.W. Edwards, Rev. O. Bussey, and Rev. Harold Knight, Edinburgh,T. and T. Clark.
BARTH, KARL(1932-1968) Church Dogmatics, TheDoctrine of God: Volume 2, First Half -Volume, Translated by J.W. Edwards,Rev. O. Bussey, and Rev. Harold Knight, Edinburgh, T. and T. Clark.
BLOESCH, DONALDG. (1987) Freedom for Obedience, SanFrancisco, Harper and Rowe Publishers.
BLOESCH, DONALDG. (1996) ‘Sin, The Biblical Understanding of Sin’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology,Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
DAVIES, BRIAN(1999) ‘Impassibility’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology,p. 288. Kent, SCM Press Ltd.
ERICKSON,MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology,Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
ERICKSON,MILLARD (2003) What Does God Know andWhen Does He Know It? Grand Rapids,Zondervan.
FEINBERG,JOHN.S. (1986) Predestination and FreeWill, in David Basinger and Randall Basinger (eds.), Downers Grove,Illinois, InterVarsity Press.
FEINBERG,JOHN.S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil,Grand Rapids, Zondervan PublishingHouse.
FRANKE, JOHN R.(2005) The Character of Theology, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids.
HELM, PAUL(2006) ‘Divine Impassibility: Why Is It Suffering?’ in Reformation 21, Philadelphia, Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals,Inc.
MOLTMANN, JÃœRGEN(1993) The Crucified God, Minneapolis,Fortress Press.
PAILIN, DAVID A.(1999) ‘Process Theology’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology,Kent, SCM Press Ltd.
SCHRECK, ALAN(1984) Catholic and Christian, AnnArbor, Michigan, Servant Books.
SPROUL, R.C.,AND ROBERT WOLGEMUTH (2000) What’s In theBible, Word Publishing, Nashville.
SURIN, KENNETH(1986) Theology and the Problem of Evil,Oxford, Basil Blackwell Ltd.
THIESSEN, HENRYC. (1956) Introductory Lectures inSystematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
VAN DER VEN,JOHANNES (1993) Practical Theology,Translated by Barbara Schultz, AC Kampen, Netherlands, Kok Pharos PublishingHouse.
VAN DER VEN,JOHANNES (1998) God Reinvented?,Leiden, Brill.
VAN DER VEN,JOHANNES (2005) ‘Theodicy Items and Scheme’, in a personal email from Johannes van der Ven, Nijmegen, RadboudUniversity, Nijmegen.
VAN DER VEN,JOHANNES (2006a) ‘Dates of Nijmegen authors’, in a personal email from Johannes van der Ven, Nijmegen, RadboudUniversity, Nijmegen.
VAN DER VEN,JOHANNES (2006b) ‘Symbols versus Models’, ina personal email from Johannes van der Ven, Nijmegen, Radboud University,Nijmegen.
WILLIAMS, ROWAN(2000) On Christian Theology,Blackwell Publishing, Oxford
[1] van der Ven (1993: 173).
Gary Habermas: Short clips
As I posted on Facebook via talksport onlineInquisiter.com-Face Tattoo After First Date
Impassibility Does God Suffer 2008: Pre-final PhD version on this topic without notes
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder