|Look up impassibility in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.|
Impassibility (from Latin in-, "not", passibilis, "able to suffer, experience emotion") describes the theological doctrine that God does not experience pain or pleasure from the actions of another being. It has often been seen as a consequence of divine aseity, the idea that God is absolutely independent of any other being, i.e., in no way causally dependent. Being affected (literally made to have a certain emotion, affect) by the state or actions of another would seem to imply causal dependence.
Some theological systems portray God as a being expressive of many (or all) emotions. Other systems, mainly in Judaism and Islam, portray God as a being that does not experience suffering or any other emotion at all. However, in Christianity there is an ancient dispute about the impassibility of God (see Nestorianism). Still, it is understood in all Abrahamic religions, including Christianity, that God is not subject to temptation or sin at all, since sin is defined as rebellion against God's loving authority and holiness. Or one could see sin as rebellion to God's will in general, and while it is conceivable that an ordinary being could "rebel" against his own better wishes, God arguably cannot since he is all-powerful and all-wise and is therefore compelled by his own nature to follow his best wishes.
|Part of a series on the|
|Attributes of God|
Augustinism, one of the chief Christian schools of thought associated most often with Roman Catholicism and Calvinist Protestantism, strongly asserts the impassibility of God, as well as his impeccability. It also defends the notion of acts of God and divine intercession, such as the miracles of the Scriptures.
Generally, scholars do not take anthropomorphic phrases in the Bible like "the finger of God" or "the hand of God" to mean that God literally has a hand or finger. Rather, it is interpreted as an allegory for the Holy Spirit and an expression of God's sovereignty over and intervention into the material world.
Thomas Jay Oord offers a scathing criticism of divine impassibility in his various theological works. Oord argues that God's nature as love requires God to be relational, which means God is not impassible.
Views in Scripture
Other Christian views portray a God who does have emotions and emotional reactions to creation, but these emotions should not necessarily be viewed as altogether similar to human emotions. Genesis 1 says that humans were made in God's image, but human emotions, originally a reflection of God's emotional capacity, have been marred by the fall of man.
Human emotions are subject to time, space, and circumstance. God's emotions are always in keeping with His character as described by the scriptures and in the person of Jesus Christ, according to Christian scholars and the Bible. A few examples are found in Genesis, chapter 8, in the account of the Flood.
God is "grieved" at the pervasive evil of mankind, yet "pleased" with Noah's faithfulness. After the flood, God is "pleased" by Noah's burnt offering. God is never "subject to" emotions, as man is, but rather He expresses emotions as subject to His sovereign will, holiness, and love. Consequently, God's will for mankind and love for mankind in Christ are not swayed by His emotions; He is immutable.
Although there are differing opinions in Christian circles about the impassibility of God, Christian scholars consent that Jesus was completely human and completely God, and so expressed sanctified emotions and was subject to the same physical limitations as humanity, such as hunger or exhaustion.
The New Testament says in Hebrews, "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin." For this reason, God accepted Christ's sacrifice on man's behalf and so is able to offer atonement through His Son.
Some early adepts of gnosticism held that Jesus did not have a living body and was not able to suffer the Passion. This debate occupied a great deal of early Church Fathers, who took labours to prove that Jesus really did have a Body.
A rival doctrine is called theopaschism, which highly insists on the suffering of the Lord Jesus at the Passion. However, theopaschism, along with patripassionism, has often been rejected by theologians as a form of modalism.
Jews generally hold to the impassibility of God and do not believe that the Messiah is divine or spiritual, but rather that he is political. The belief in divine simplicity is at the heart of Judaism, and the gender of God (i.e., God the Father) is not specified.
The Islamic religion is based on the notion of the absolute impassibility of God, an impassibility which is only matched by transcendence. Again, Islam does not believe in incarnation, passion, Holy Trinity and resurrection and God the Father because it is seen as an attack on divine impassibility.
Although love and mercy are attributed to God, it is emphasised that God is completely dissimilar to created things. Al-Raheem, the Merciful, is one of the primary names of God in Islam, but meant in terms of God being beneficent towards creation rather than in terms of softening of the heart. The latter implies a psychological change, and contradicts God's absolute transcendence. 
This is not the case in all religions: many folk religions, especially ones dealing with ancestor worship, will treat good weather, favorable harvests, etc., as a sign that the gods are pleased, and will attribute disease or misfortune to their anger. Many polytheistic traditions portray their gods as feeling a wide range of emotions.
Impassibility in the Western tradition traces back to ancient Greek philosophers like Aristotle and Plato, who first proposed the idea of God as a perfect, omniscient, timeless, and unchanging being not subject to human emotion (which represents change and imperfection). The concept of impassibility was developed by medieval theologians like Anselm and continues to be in tension with more emotional concepts of God.
- Johnson, Phillip R. God Without Mood Swings: Recovering the Doctrine of Divine Impassibility
- Gavrilyuk, Paul L. (2004). The Suffering of the Impassible God: The Dialectics of Patristic Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004/ 2006.
- Weinandy, Thomas G. (2000). Does God Suffer? Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2000.
- Creel, Richard E. (1986). Divine Impassibility. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1986.
- "There Is No Pain, You Are Misreading": Is God "Comfortably Numb"? - An Essay by Robert Gonzales Jr.
- The Nature of Love: A Theology, Thomas Jay Oord (2010) ISBN 978-0-8272-0828-5
- Demonstrations by Syllogism, at http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2704.htm
- , The Bible, New International Version
- , The Bible, Contemporary English Version
- A representative Sunni view is expressed in "Can Allah feel emotions like happiness and sadness?", Seeker's Guidance, Oct 26 2010.