What do you think?
Rate this book
God Is Impassible and Impassioned
The doctrine of divine impassibility has sparked much controversy among modern theologians. After reviewing relevant historical, biblical, and theological issues, Lister proposes an understanding of God as fundamentally impassible and yet profoundly impassioned.
336 pages, Paperback
First published November 1, 2012
31 people are currently reading
390 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews
May 31, 2015
Having read the few impassibilists leading the way in the debate, namely, Weinandy (Catholic), Hart (Orthodox) and Gavrilyuk (Orthodox), I was encouraged to see an evangelical contribution to the recent impassibility pushback. Lister is Prof. of theology at Talbot Theological Seminary in California and did his Ph.D at Southern under Bruce Ware. This book actually is a slightly modified form of his dissertation.
With that being said, Lister was a good read, but nothing new, as he seemingly relies heavily on Weinandy, Gavrilyuk, Hart, and other men that I have already read. His positive contribution to the debate doesn't come until chapter 9, which is at least the longest chapter in the book. Lister holds to the model Weinandy puts forth except he puts God within time allowing for God to experience emotional fluctuations (which he voluntarily enters into) vis-à-vis his creatures, although such emotional fluctuations are still not affections, that is to say God's emotions do not rise by way of him being affected externally, in order for God to experience in time what he had ordained to happen before creation. This distinction of God's eternal decrees (impassible) as the ontological grounding for all that is to come to pass juxtaposed to God's experience of the aforesaid (impassioned) within time, is the essential thesis and positive contribution of his book. He just takes a really long time getting there. If you are well versed on the issues, skip to chapter nine. If not, the whole book might not be bad to actually read first before penetrating the more academically rigorous material.
My issue is that I want God atemporal, and I do not want God's actual emotion states and dispositions towards the seven billion people alive right now fluctuating in some wide array of chaotic schizophrenia analogous to some super computer. While I am happy that Lister entered into the debate as an evangelical contributor, I reject his qualified form of impassibility. I think I need to read Paul Helms book next. Who knows where the rabbit trails will lead next!
-b
With that being said, Lister was a good read, but nothing new, as he seemingly relies heavily on Weinandy, Gavrilyuk, Hart, and other men that I have already read. His positive contribution to the debate doesn't come until chapter 9, which is at least the longest chapter in the book. Lister holds to the model Weinandy puts forth except he puts God within time allowing for God to experience emotional fluctuations (which he voluntarily enters into) vis-à-vis his creatures, although such emotional fluctuations are still not affections, that is to say God's emotions do not rise by way of him being affected externally, in order for God to experience in time what he had ordained to happen before creation. This distinction of God's eternal decrees (impassible) as the ontological grounding for all that is to come to pass juxtaposed to God's experience of the aforesaid (impassioned) within time, is the essential thesis and positive contribution of his book. He just takes a really long time getting there. If you are well versed on the issues, skip to chapter nine. If not, the whole book might not be bad to actually read first before penetrating the more academically rigorous material.
My issue is that I want God atemporal, and I do not want God's actual emotion states and dispositions towards the seven billion people alive right now fluctuating in some wide array of chaotic schizophrenia analogous to some super computer. While I am happy that Lister entered into the debate as an evangelical contributor, I reject his qualified form of impassibility. I think I need to read Paul Helms book next. Who knows where the rabbit trails will lead next!
-b
November 11, 2022
I’ve wanted to read this for awhile and finally had to for class!! I looked up a lot of hard words, but still thoroughly enjoyed the read (especially part two).
Rob Lister teases out how God is both impassible and impassioned without contradicting Himself. All of God’s emotions stem from who He is and His eternal will. His emotions are perfectly stable and voluntarily expressed to His creatures. This should give emotionally unstable humans hope that our creator is perfectly stable in His passion.
“Our problem is not ordinarily that we have too much emotion, but that we have too little, or more precisely, we have too weak of an affection for the things that please the Lord. Sanctification involves not only learning more about God, but loving the God we learn about ever more deeply” (283).
Rob Lister teases out how God is both impassible and impassioned without contradicting Himself. All of God’s emotions stem from who He is and His eternal will. His emotions are perfectly stable and voluntarily expressed to His creatures. This should give emotionally unstable humans hope that our creator is perfectly stable in His passion.
“Our problem is not ordinarily that we have too much emotion, but that we have too little, or more precisely, we have too weak of an affection for the things that please the Lord. Sanctification involves not only learning more about God, but loving the God we learn about ever more deeply” (283).
February 21, 2013
"God is Impassible and Impassioned" is an excellent book. Lister's work is an extraordinary example of what evangelical scholarship should look like: Biblically faithful, Christ honoring, academically credible, fair and charitable to those with whom the author disagrees, heart-warming, worship-evoking, thought-provoking, historically faithful, and challenging. To think that this is largely borne out of Lister's PhD dissertation makes the book all the more remarkable because it is quite readable. Lister walks the reader through the history of Christian thought at a quick but informative pace, surveys the significant biblical passages that play on this issue, and then dives into the theological implications defending a workable and credible thesis of how God is both impassible and impassioned. The last chapter by itself is worth the price of the book. This will surely become required reading for my next Theology Proper class.
March 13, 2022
Lister’s discussion of God’s impassioned impassibility is rooted in the Creator/creature distinction and God’s transcendence AND immanence. These two foundations lead to God’s emotions having some semblance to ours, because we are made in His image, but also being different, because not only is He not sinful, but He is God. Thus while there may be anthropathic aspects of His emotion, it should not be anthropocentric, that is, founded on our ideas of what we think is necessary for a real relationship. The transcendence that fuels God’s immanence is also important, showing that all that God does in relation to us is not out of need or of being manipulated, but out of His stable Trinitarian love.
With those underlying foundations, Lister concludes that “God’s relationally redemptive responsiveness remains grounded in his eternally perfect passion. In other words, God’s varying emotional response to his fallen and repentant creatures is the in-time expression of his eternal character and passion. The temporal fluctuation is secured in virtue of the fact that God’s commitment to his own glory is perfectly and eternally unwavering” (181).
He builds his theology from historical, systematic, and biblical theological angles, which is robust and helpful. While I still have some questions (especially about the timeless/temporal discussion), Lister’s two-pronged, qualified-passibility approach is much more satisfactory than anything else I’ve come across, accounting for both what God’s emotions are and are not (not just what they are not!).
With those underlying foundations, Lister concludes that “God’s relationally redemptive responsiveness remains grounded in his eternally perfect passion. In other words, God’s varying emotional response to his fallen and repentant creatures is the in-time expression of his eternal character and passion. The temporal fluctuation is secured in virtue of the fact that God’s commitment to his own glory is perfectly and eternally unwavering” (181).
He builds his theology from historical, systematic, and biblical theological angles, which is robust and helpful. While I still have some questions (especially about the timeless/temporal discussion), Lister’s two-pronged, qualified-passibility approach is much more satisfactory than anything else I’ve come across, accounting for both what God’s emotions are and are not (not just what they are not!).
August 24, 2021
Wow. This is what all academic works should aspire to be like! Engaging, extensive, and charitable towards those he disagrees with. He dives into a difficult topic most authors wouldn’t go near and makes it exciting for those knew to the subject! Grateful for this work.
August 17, 2020
This was a thorough and helpful treatment of the doctrine of divine impossibility. It engaged very well with questions I have been wondering about for some time. I appreciated the historical, exegetical, systematic, and biblical-theological analysis. The footnotes provide a wealth of information for further study.
May 10, 2013
This was a very good book. Originally Lister's PhD dissertation at SBTS, Lister seeks to show how God is both impassible (by which he means that He is not swayed surprisingly emotionally) while at the same time impassioned. Just as God is both transcendent and immanent, He is both impassible and impassioned.
He surveys historical data - most notably a fresh survey of what the church fathers believed about impassibilism -, the influence of passibilism in contemporary theology, and offers his fresh take as a development on historical themes. Since this book was a dissertation, it is very technical, but there was much beneficial reflection on all sorts of areas of theology that deal with the God who is ontologically different than man, yet analogically near.
As an aside, I think it's fascinating how most evangelicals studying systematic theology - including me! - don't really understand what impassibilism actually posits. Impassiblism doesn't mean that God doesn't have emotions - far from it! Rather, His emotions are in perfect unity and are displayed distinctly in redemptive history.
Lister convincingly shows that ultimately, contra contemporary passibilism, the God who is impassible and impassioned serves as a better comforter in the times of trial. I was blessed and enriched by this book and am excited to see what sort of discussion it will continue to foster in the coming years.
He surveys historical data - most notably a fresh survey of what the church fathers believed about impassibilism -, the influence of passibilism in contemporary theology, and offers his fresh take as a development on historical themes. Since this book was a dissertation, it is very technical, but there was much beneficial reflection on all sorts of areas of theology that deal with the God who is ontologically different than man, yet analogically near.
As an aside, I think it's fascinating how most evangelicals studying systematic theology - including me! - don't really understand what impassibilism actually posits. Impassiblism doesn't mean that God doesn't have emotions - far from it! Rather, His emotions are in perfect unity and are displayed distinctly in redemptive history.
Lister convincingly shows that ultimately, contra contemporary passibilism, the God who is impassible and impassioned serves as a better comforter in the times of trial. I was blessed and enriched by this book and am excited to see what sort of discussion it will continue to foster in the coming years.
April 15, 2013
Transcendent yet immanent. Knowable yet unknowable. Merciful yet wrathful. These contrasting descriptions are all true equally and at the same time as they describe the nature and character of God as revealed in Scripture. There are many people who have a hard time wrapping their minds around how God can both transcend the human experience as creator, wholly other and holy God, and yet, this same God accommodates Himself to the human experience in Christ incarnate and walks on the very earth He created and among the very creatures He created. These are tension points in Scripture for people trying to make sense of them and yet God and His word do not seem to so much as bat an eye.
Along these lines of tension is the discussion of God’s impassibility. Though mention of the impassibility of God stretches back to the early church fathers there have been very few books specifically dedicated to the topic. Recently, Crossway has published a new book dedicated to the topic titled God is Impassible and Impassioned: Toward a Theology of Devine Emotion by Rob Lister. Lister earned his PhD. From The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and is associate professor of biblical and theological studies at the Talbot School of Theology. Lister’s goal is to address how it is that Scripture presents God as both unchangeable and yet expresses passions that might imply some kind of change when viewed from the human experience.
Some Definitions
The essence of the doctrine of passibility is that God suffers in the divine nature. This can be seen to them most clearly in the incarnation of Christ. The line of thought runs as follows: (1) Jesus was God incarnate, (2) Jesus displayed passion and experienced suffering on the cross, (3) therefore, God is susceptible to passion and suffering. (p. 125-26) Contra this, impassibility is the doctrine that God does not experience suffering in the divine nature. Lister defines being impassible and impassioned as follows:
Impassibility is the belief that God cannot be manipulated, overwhelmed, or surprised into an emotional interaction that he does not desire to have or allow to happen. (p. 36)
Impassioned is the belief that God may be affected by his creatures, but as God, he is so in ways that accord rather than conflict with his will to be so affected by those whom, in love, he has made. (p. 36)
Again, contra the passibilist’s view of the incarnation, Lister sees the incarnation as the perfect embodiment of the doctrine of impassibility.
The incarnation furnishes us with the supreme example of the dual biblical affirmation of divine self-sufficiency and gracious condescension. Accordingly, we see that the second person of the trinity had to become incarnate in order to overcome natural divine impassibility (i.e. the impassibility of the divine order), and thereby accomplish the redemptively necessary goal of humanly experiencing suffering and death on behalf of sinners. (p. 37)
Lister makes a strong, detailed and deep case for God being both impassible and yet impassioned. Given the depth of the book I will only be able to touch on some of the more salient features of Lister’s argument.
Salient Features
Lister’s work is extremely well reasoned and thought out. It is exegetically based and driven on solid Biblical, theological and hermeneutical ground. In short, Lister’s argument holds the weight of the freight it intends to carry.
There are several gems to Lister’s argument that are worth briefly pointing out. First, as with any good discussion on a topic like this Lister revisits the primary sources in regards to the understanding of the history of the church on divine impassibility. In chapters two and three Lister’s addresses the Hellenization Hypothesis which seeks to discredit the Patristic notion of divine impassibility on the basis that it borrowed it completely from Greek thought. Recognizing that this claim commits the genetic fallacy Lister points out that merely borrowing language and concepts of contemporary philosophy is in itself not problematic and in fact necessary. Lister rightly points out that “the critical issue, then, is discerning whether biblical authority has been compromised in the attempt to express biblical truth through borrowed terminology.” (p. 61)
Second, as briefly mentioned above, Lister points to the incarnation as the embodiment of the impassibilist’s position. Lister argues that because the divine nature cannot suffer in the way that was necessary to affirm, among other things, the truth of Heb. 4:15, Jesus had to become incarnate in order to accomplish the cross. Christ did not suffer as a man to show us suffering in the divine nature of God but rather God became a man in Christ so that he could suffer. (p. 270) Lister is not saying that the divine nature cannot express emotion but rather, “as one expression of the explicit purpose of the incarnation that Jesus carry out the entirety of his mission – including his obedience, emotion, suffering, and death – as a man in dependence on God……Jesus our elder brother, who as the perfect image of God perfectly displayed for us what godly human passion should look like.” (p. 262) The point on the incarnation is one that Lister makes throughout much of the book.
Closely tied together are the third and fourth points. Third, there is the Creator/creature distinction. The point drawn from this distinction is that though God and man experience the same kinds of emotions they do not in the same way by virtue of the ontological difference between the two. The divine nature is perfect, infinite, transcendent and incorporeal. Man on the other hand is not. This leads to the fourth feature of analogical revelation. It is obne thing to affirm the emotional attributions to God in Scripture as real but it another thing to anchor our understanding of them first in ourselves (who are sinners) rather than the other way around. (p. 187) The mistake that passibilists make is to nearly view God’s emotions and ours as univocal. “We must never mistake relationship or emotional engagement with God for relationship with a peer.” (p. 216) This is further evident in being created in the image of God. “We are God’s analogues and not his ontological peers.” (p. 219) The Creator/creature distinction should keep this from happening.
Fifth, since Lister takes a decidedly Reformed approach (p. 36) to the impassibility of God he holds to God’s exhaustive divine foreknowledge (EDF). His explanation of this is clearly tied to the definition above of divine impassibility.
"EDF precludes the possibility that God might ever be “caught off-guard,” thus experiencing an emotional reaction based on the surprise that comes to him from encountering the unforeseen. Additionally, EDF includes the fact that God foreknows not only all that his creatures will do, but also his own emotional (and volitional) responses to his creatures’ actions, before he himself ever experiences those responses." (p. 237-38)
Finally, though not unique to Lister’s approach, it bears pointing out the scope of Lister’s intent in the book. Lister is trying to produce a retroductive model of logical reasoning which “attempts to present a comprehensive theory sufficient to account for all the relevant data.” (p. 174) This approach seeks to hold to a theology that incorporates all the relevant data and thus develop a synthesized conclusion, rather than basing ones entire theology based on one passage of Scripture to the detriment of much else.
Conclusion
God is Impassible and Impassioned is a solid defense of the traditional doctrine of divine impassibility. Lister succeeds in defending the doctrine while also further expanding on some points that are both necessary and natural. That the title includes describing God as impassioned speaks to the balance Lister carries throughout the book. Lister is intent on holding onto the tension both words create because that is where he sees Scripture taking us. Lister’s presentation and critique of the history of this doctrine is fair and shows he has done the hard work of reading the primary sources. Lister addresses not only the most notable proponents of passibilism but also points out those within the conservative evangelical camp such as John Stott and John Feinberg. Though he disagrees with Open Theists, his treatment of them is fair and there is surprisingly no discussion of Greg Boyd who is probably the most conservative of the group though the most vocal and influential.
In regards to the biblical text Lister does not shy away from the hard texts. He ably discusses themes and exegetes texts like God’s jealousy in Deut. 4:23-24 and Deut. 6:13-15, the anger of God in Judges 2:11-15, God’s covenant love in the Psalms and Prophets and the famous repentance/regret/relenting passages like 1 Sam. 15. In the chapter dedicated to exploring the implications of impassibility and the incarnation Lister further deals with various relevant Christological passages such as the passion narrative, 1 Pt. 3:18-4:2 and Heb. 2:9-18 and 4:15. The only thing I would have liked to see more of was on the chapter on the incarnation. Though it ran throughout the book it could have been longer.
In short this book has added to the impassibility discussion and has brought life back into a virtually dormant discussion. This is not a book for the light of heart but I recommend it to theologically informed pastors, students and theologians.
NOTE: I received this book for free from Crossway in exchange for a review. The words and thoughts expressed are my own and I was under no obligation to provide a favorable review.
Along these lines of tension is the discussion of God’s impassibility. Though mention of the impassibility of God stretches back to the early church fathers there have been very few books specifically dedicated to the topic. Recently, Crossway has published a new book dedicated to the topic titled God is Impassible and Impassioned: Toward a Theology of Devine Emotion by Rob Lister. Lister earned his PhD. From The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and is associate professor of biblical and theological studies at the Talbot School of Theology. Lister’s goal is to address how it is that Scripture presents God as both unchangeable and yet expresses passions that might imply some kind of change when viewed from the human experience.
Some Definitions
The essence of the doctrine of passibility is that God suffers in the divine nature. This can be seen to them most clearly in the incarnation of Christ. The line of thought runs as follows: (1) Jesus was God incarnate, (2) Jesus displayed passion and experienced suffering on the cross, (3) therefore, God is susceptible to passion and suffering. (p. 125-26) Contra this, impassibility is the doctrine that God does not experience suffering in the divine nature. Lister defines being impassible and impassioned as follows:
Impassibility is the belief that God cannot be manipulated, overwhelmed, or surprised into an emotional interaction that he does not desire to have or allow to happen. (p. 36)
Impassioned is the belief that God may be affected by his creatures, but as God, he is so in ways that accord rather than conflict with his will to be so affected by those whom, in love, he has made. (p. 36)
Again, contra the passibilist’s view of the incarnation, Lister sees the incarnation as the perfect embodiment of the doctrine of impassibility.
The incarnation furnishes us with the supreme example of the dual biblical affirmation of divine self-sufficiency and gracious condescension. Accordingly, we see that the second person of the trinity had to become incarnate in order to overcome natural divine impassibility (i.e. the impassibility of the divine order), and thereby accomplish the redemptively necessary goal of humanly experiencing suffering and death on behalf of sinners. (p. 37)
Lister makes a strong, detailed and deep case for God being both impassible and yet impassioned. Given the depth of the book I will only be able to touch on some of the more salient features of Lister’s argument.
Salient Features
Lister’s work is extremely well reasoned and thought out. It is exegetically based and driven on solid Biblical, theological and hermeneutical ground. In short, Lister’s argument holds the weight of the freight it intends to carry.
There are several gems to Lister’s argument that are worth briefly pointing out. First, as with any good discussion on a topic like this Lister revisits the primary sources in regards to the understanding of the history of the church on divine impassibility. In chapters two and three Lister’s addresses the Hellenization Hypothesis which seeks to discredit the Patristic notion of divine impassibility on the basis that it borrowed it completely from Greek thought. Recognizing that this claim commits the genetic fallacy Lister points out that merely borrowing language and concepts of contemporary philosophy is in itself not problematic and in fact necessary. Lister rightly points out that “the critical issue, then, is discerning whether biblical authority has been compromised in the attempt to express biblical truth through borrowed terminology.” (p. 61)
Second, as briefly mentioned above, Lister points to the incarnation as the embodiment of the impassibilist’s position. Lister argues that because the divine nature cannot suffer in the way that was necessary to affirm, among other things, the truth of Heb. 4:15, Jesus had to become incarnate in order to accomplish the cross. Christ did not suffer as a man to show us suffering in the divine nature of God but rather God became a man in Christ so that he could suffer. (p. 270) Lister is not saying that the divine nature cannot express emotion but rather, “as one expression of the explicit purpose of the incarnation that Jesus carry out the entirety of his mission – including his obedience, emotion, suffering, and death – as a man in dependence on God……Jesus our elder brother, who as the perfect image of God perfectly displayed for us what godly human passion should look like.” (p. 262) The point on the incarnation is one that Lister makes throughout much of the book.
Closely tied together are the third and fourth points. Third, there is the Creator/creature distinction. The point drawn from this distinction is that though God and man experience the same kinds of emotions they do not in the same way by virtue of the ontological difference between the two. The divine nature is perfect, infinite, transcendent and incorporeal. Man on the other hand is not. This leads to the fourth feature of analogical revelation. It is obne thing to affirm the emotional attributions to God in Scripture as real but it another thing to anchor our understanding of them first in ourselves (who are sinners) rather than the other way around. (p. 187) The mistake that passibilists make is to nearly view God’s emotions and ours as univocal. “We must never mistake relationship or emotional engagement with God for relationship with a peer.” (p. 216) This is further evident in being created in the image of God. “We are God’s analogues and not his ontological peers.” (p. 219) The Creator/creature distinction should keep this from happening.
Fifth, since Lister takes a decidedly Reformed approach (p. 36) to the impassibility of God he holds to God’s exhaustive divine foreknowledge (EDF). His explanation of this is clearly tied to the definition above of divine impassibility.
"EDF precludes the possibility that God might ever be “caught off-guard,” thus experiencing an emotional reaction based on the surprise that comes to him from encountering the unforeseen. Additionally, EDF includes the fact that God foreknows not only all that his creatures will do, but also his own emotional (and volitional) responses to his creatures’ actions, before he himself ever experiences those responses." (p. 237-38)
Finally, though not unique to Lister’s approach, it bears pointing out the scope of Lister’s intent in the book. Lister is trying to produce a retroductive model of logical reasoning which “attempts to present a comprehensive theory sufficient to account for all the relevant data.” (p. 174) This approach seeks to hold to a theology that incorporates all the relevant data and thus develop a synthesized conclusion, rather than basing ones entire theology based on one passage of Scripture to the detriment of much else.
Conclusion
God is Impassible and Impassioned is a solid defense of the traditional doctrine of divine impassibility. Lister succeeds in defending the doctrine while also further expanding on some points that are both necessary and natural. That the title includes describing God as impassioned speaks to the balance Lister carries throughout the book. Lister is intent on holding onto the tension both words create because that is where he sees Scripture taking us. Lister’s presentation and critique of the history of this doctrine is fair and shows he has done the hard work of reading the primary sources. Lister addresses not only the most notable proponents of passibilism but also points out those within the conservative evangelical camp such as John Stott and John Feinberg. Though he disagrees with Open Theists, his treatment of them is fair and there is surprisingly no discussion of Greg Boyd who is probably the most conservative of the group though the most vocal and influential.
In regards to the biblical text Lister does not shy away from the hard texts. He ably discusses themes and exegetes texts like God’s jealousy in Deut. 4:23-24 and Deut. 6:13-15, the anger of God in Judges 2:11-15, God’s covenant love in the Psalms and Prophets and the famous repentance/regret/relenting passages like 1 Sam. 15. In the chapter dedicated to exploring the implications of impassibility and the incarnation Lister further deals with various relevant Christological passages such as the passion narrative, 1 Pt. 3:18-4:2 and Heb. 2:9-18 and 4:15. The only thing I would have liked to see more of was on the chapter on the incarnation. Though it ran throughout the book it could have been longer.
In short this book has added to the impassibility discussion and has brought life back into a virtually dormant discussion. This is not a book for the light of heart but I recommend it to theologically informed pastors, students and theologians.
NOTE: I received this book for free from Crossway in exchange for a review. The words and thoughts expressed are my own and I was under no obligation to provide a favorable review.
December 24, 2023
This book was a really annoying read.
For the good parts, he correctly reject the thesis according to which the Fathers uncritically incorporated hellenistic categories of thoughts into their theology, he deals with the current state and actors of the debate on God's impassibility, the footnotes are extensive and the book is well written.
Having said that, his treatment of the Father is hard to read without getting annoyed because it seems more like he set out to find and prove what he already had conceived in his mind to be true. It is not like he is stating his hypothesis in a scientific way, but more like he wants to show you by some selective reading how his position is vindicated in them.
When a Father makes a statement that tends towards passibility he grabs it to his advantage, and when a Father makes a statement that tends towards impassability, he qualifies it (for instance by restricting it to some some particular context instead of being a general statement).
It seems that most of the book is trying to put theologians in his pocket who actually would have been quite revulsed at his theory (which I will come back to later).
Let's just take the example of Augustine, Lister quotes Augustine: "Even though we speak of God changing His mind, of His becoming angry, for example, after being kind to certain people, it is, in reality, these people, not God, who change".
Since this statement does not fit with Lister's model, he subsequently quotes two other passages to the rescue to undermine this statement by Augustine.
"We say He is impassible, yet not impatient; nay, rather, extremely patient. His patience is indescribable, yet it exists as does His jealousy, His wrath, and any characteristic of this kind. But if we conceive of these qualities as they exist in us, He has none of them. We do not experience these feelings without annoyance, but far be it from us to suspect an impassible God of suffering any annoyance. Just as He is jealous without any ill will, as He is angry without being emotionally upset, as He pities without grieving, as He is sorry without correcting any fault, so He is patient without suffering at al"
and another passage to the same effect "[...] But by the repentance of God is meant the change of things which lie within His power, unexpected by man; the anger of God is His vengeance upon sin; the pity of God is the goodness of His help; the jealousy of God is that providence whereby He does not allow those whom He has in subjection to Himself to love with impunity what He forbids."
Now, it is clear that there is no contradiction here. Augustine clearly qualifies God's emotions and seem to ascribe them to our perception rather than a change in God. "the repentance of God is meant the change of things which lie within His power, unexpected by man" is the same as "it is, in reality, these people, not God, who change".
Yet Lister writes: "Assuredly, Augustine’s argument with respect to divine emotion in the two preceding passages surpasses his subjectivist interpretation from Civ. 22.2. In these latter two instances, he affirms carefully qualified senses of divine emotion [...] alongside a balancing emphasis on God’s transcendence and the analogical nature of these emotions when compared to mankind’s experience of them. That is to say that Augustine, when at his best, allowed meaningful predication of emotional terminology to God, with the proviso that in God’s case, such emotional experience is unencumbered with the negative effects of human emotional experience. Hence, for Augustine, God’s emotional expressions may not be taken as evidence of God’s reaction to something unforeseen or of impotence in the attempt to accomplish his purposes."
I think this shows my point. Lister does not do justice to Augustine's thoughts at all. Instead of saying that Augustine qualifies God's emotion has something that we perceive about God's purposes changing for us, he qualifies Augustine's impassibilistic statement by saying that Augustine ascribes emotions to God but that He is in control as He is omniscient and cannot be taken by surprise. That's not what Augustine does in those passages he quoted.
It is important for Lister to do so since he wants to affirm that God has set out reactions/changes in Himself to experience through providence so as to truly relate to his people.
Another issue with this book is that it never mentions the distinction between God towards us and God in himself (quoad nos and in se). This would be an explanation why the bible and the Father can ascribe a certain passion to God without God actually being mutable.
Again, after his treatment of Aquinas, Lister concludes: "In the final analysis, however, while we may have moved beyond (his) scholasticism, and while we may wish to expand (his) reasoning and perhaps even refine certain details in (his) views, the fundamental impulse they have demonstrated toward a dual affirmation of divine passion and divine impassibility is both correct and commendable." Yes and no. First, Aquinas writes, "Whereas, those that do not imply imperfection, such as love and joy, can be properly predicated of God, though WITHOUT attributing PASSION to Him, as said before". Maybe Lister meant to write emotion instead of passion.
Second, Aquinas does write that we can predicate joy and love to God in a qualified sense (and Lister correctly identifies that) in that those emotions do not result from a bodily change (God is Spirit) or are not metaphorical (from effects perceived). But once thing that is missing is the concept of analogical language! This means that his conclusion on the Aquinas is fruitless. Since joy and love when predicated of God are nothing like joy and love when predicated of man, and especially not joy and love perfected according to our human understanding. No, God is on another spectrum. He is "wholly other," that is to say, "Not like us." (Lister treats analogical language later in the book, in a rather appropriate fashion)
So, what is Lister's thesis?
tl;dr., it is rather like the classical understanding but with an unnecessary and heretical addition of God being in space and time. Lister explains that in chapter 9 under "Timeless and Temporal"
He suggest a dual model, correlated to God's immanence and transcendence, where God is both impassible and yet impassioned (with divine emotions) (so far so good, that would be the classical position) in a way that, to truly relate to his creation, especially with the redemptive history as a backdrop, God enters creation in space and time. He takes on temporal attributes that enable him to interact with humans (not good, incoherent, and selective view). For Him God can not be said to truly engage with creation, particularly with his covenant people, if God is not in space and time. For Lister, God is temporally eternal in himself, but in "entering" creation, he "becomes" temporal.
"I [...] maintain that God’s temporal participation with us, following creation, is reflective of his voluntary and gracious immanence.", "With respect to God’s own experience of emotion, this model of God’s relationship to time in himself and in creation means that God has eternally known and ordained not only his creatures’ actions, but also his responses to those actions.", "we should not think of God as eternally experiencing all of his emotional experiences or as eternally performing all of his volitional actions. For example, God is not eternally wrathful and eternally merciful toward a given individual, any more than we would say that he eternally condemns and eternally forgives that same person. We must allow, in our understanding, for the temporal outworking and redemptive-historical progression of God’s eternal plan. Though his knowledge of that plan is eternal, his unfolding experience of it occurs in the temporally progressive covenantal context,".
So, it is clear that Lister's thesis is quite different from the classical position on the topic. And this is my main complaint about the book. All throughout the book, Lister has tried to argue that previous theologians paved the way for his thesis or that they displayed it. But it is far from being the case.
A very interesting thing about this book is to read how Lister engages with Paul Helm's view, which is the classical understanding. Lister's point of criticism is that Helm's view makes God's dealing with creation and his covenant people not genuine. God would appear to be this and so without actually being this and so. On the contrary, Helm's view is that God is fully loving and not indifferent. In order to achieve his redemptive plan, God reveals himself little by little, and to test his people and guide them, he presents himself in such and such a way (angry, compassionate, repenting,...) to create changes in his creatures, while He in himself (in se) is not subject to passions.
For the good parts, he correctly reject the thesis according to which the Fathers uncritically incorporated hellenistic categories of thoughts into their theology, he deals with the current state and actors of the debate on God's impassibility, the footnotes are extensive and the book is well written.
Having said that, his treatment of the Father is hard to read without getting annoyed because it seems more like he set out to find and prove what he already had conceived in his mind to be true. It is not like he is stating his hypothesis in a scientific way, but more like he wants to show you by some selective reading how his position is vindicated in them.
When a Father makes a statement that tends towards passibility he grabs it to his advantage, and when a Father makes a statement that tends towards impassability, he qualifies it (for instance by restricting it to some some particular context instead of being a general statement).
It seems that most of the book is trying to put theologians in his pocket who actually would have been quite revulsed at his theory (which I will come back to later).
Let's just take the example of Augustine, Lister quotes Augustine: "Even though we speak of God changing His mind, of His becoming angry, for example, after being kind to certain people, it is, in reality, these people, not God, who change".
Since this statement does not fit with Lister's model, he subsequently quotes two other passages to the rescue to undermine this statement by Augustine.
"We say He is impassible, yet not impatient; nay, rather, extremely patient. His patience is indescribable, yet it exists as does His jealousy, His wrath, and any characteristic of this kind. But if we conceive of these qualities as they exist in us, He has none of them. We do not experience these feelings without annoyance, but far be it from us to suspect an impassible God of suffering any annoyance. Just as He is jealous without any ill will, as He is angry without being emotionally upset, as He pities without grieving, as He is sorry without correcting any fault, so He is patient without suffering at al"
and another passage to the same effect "[...] But by the repentance of God is meant the change of things which lie within His power, unexpected by man; the anger of God is His vengeance upon sin; the pity of God is the goodness of His help; the jealousy of God is that providence whereby He does not allow those whom He has in subjection to Himself to love with impunity what He forbids."
Now, it is clear that there is no contradiction here. Augustine clearly qualifies God's emotions and seem to ascribe them to our perception rather than a change in God. "the repentance of God is meant the change of things which lie within His power, unexpected by man" is the same as "it is, in reality, these people, not God, who change".
Yet Lister writes: "Assuredly, Augustine’s argument with respect to divine emotion in the two preceding passages surpasses his subjectivist interpretation from Civ. 22.2. In these latter two instances, he affirms carefully qualified senses of divine emotion [...] alongside a balancing emphasis on God’s transcendence and the analogical nature of these emotions when compared to mankind’s experience of them. That is to say that Augustine, when at his best, allowed meaningful predication of emotional terminology to God, with the proviso that in God’s case, such emotional experience is unencumbered with the negative effects of human emotional experience. Hence, for Augustine, God’s emotional expressions may not be taken as evidence of God’s reaction to something unforeseen or of impotence in the attempt to accomplish his purposes."
I think this shows my point. Lister does not do justice to Augustine's thoughts at all. Instead of saying that Augustine qualifies God's emotion has something that we perceive about God's purposes changing for us, he qualifies Augustine's impassibilistic statement by saying that Augustine ascribes emotions to God but that He is in control as He is omniscient and cannot be taken by surprise. That's not what Augustine does in those passages he quoted.
It is important for Lister to do so since he wants to affirm that God has set out reactions/changes in Himself to experience through providence so as to truly relate to his people.
Another issue with this book is that it never mentions the distinction between God towards us and God in himself (quoad nos and in se). This would be an explanation why the bible and the Father can ascribe a certain passion to God without God actually being mutable.
Again, after his treatment of Aquinas, Lister concludes: "In the final analysis, however, while we may have moved beyond (his) scholasticism, and while we may wish to expand (his) reasoning and perhaps even refine certain details in (his) views, the fundamental impulse they have demonstrated toward a dual affirmation of divine passion and divine impassibility is both correct and commendable." Yes and no. First, Aquinas writes, "Whereas, those that do not imply imperfection, such as love and joy, can be properly predicated of God, though WITHOUT attributing PASSION to Him, as said before". Maybe Lister meant to write emotion instead of passion.
Second, Aquinas does write that we can predicate joy and love to God in a qualified sense (and Lister correctly identifies that) in that those emotions do not result from a bodily change (God is Spirit) or are not metaphorical (from effects perceived). But once thing that is missing is the concept of analogical language! This means that his conclusion on the Aquinas is fruitless. Since joy and love when predicated of God are nothing like joy and love when predicated of man, and especially not joy and love perfected according to our human understanding. No, God is on another spectrum. He is "wholly other," that is to say, "Not like us." (Lister treats analogical language later in the book, in a rather appropriate fashion)
So, what is Lister's thesis?
tl;dr., it is rather like the classical understanding but with an unnecessary and heretical addition of God being in space and time. Lister explains that in chapter 9 under "Timeless and Temporal"
He suggest a dual model, correlated to God's immanence and transcendence, where God is both impassible and yet impassioned (with divine emotions) (so far so good, that would be the classical position) in a way that, to truly relate to his creation, especially with the redemptive history as a backdrop, God enters creation in space and time. He takes on temporal attributes that enable him to interact with humans (not good, incoherent, and selective view). For Him God can not be said to truly engage with creation, particularly with his covenant people, if God is not in space and time. For Lister, God is temporally eternal in himself, but in "entering" creation, he "becomes" temporal.
"I [...] maintain that God’s temporal participation with us, following creation, is reflective of his voluntary and gracious immanence.", "With respect to God’s own experience of emotion, this model of God’s relationship to time in himself and in creation means that God has eternally known and ordained not only his creatures’ actions, but also his responses to those actions.", "we should not think of God as eternally experiencing all of his emotional experiences or as eternally performing all of his volitional actions. For example, God is not eternally wrathful and eternally merciful toward a given individual, any more than we would say that he eternally condemns and eternally forgives that same person. We must allow, in our understanding, for the temporal outworking and redemptive-historical progression of God’s eternal plan. Though his knowledge of that plan is eternal, his unfolding experience of it occurs in the temporally progressive covenantal context,".
So, it is clear that Lister's thesis is quite different from the classical position on the topic. And this is my main complaint about the book. All throughout the book, Lister has tried to argue that previous theologians paved the way for his thesis or that they displayed it. But it is far from being the case.
A very interesting thing about this book is to read how Lister engages with Paul Helm's view, which is the classical understanding. Lister's point of criticism is that Helm's view makes God's dealing with creation and his covenant people not genuine. God would appear to be this and so without actually being this and so. On the contrary, Helm's view is that God is fully loving and not indifferent. In order to achieve his redemptive plan, God reveals himself little by little, and to test his people and guide them, he presents himself in such and such a way (angry, compassionate, repenting,...) to create changes in his creatures, while He in himself (in se) is not subject to passions.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 27, 2022
Impassioned and Impassible is an enjoyable, clear, and persuasive telling of the historical roots of an Impassioned and Impassible God that also attends to modern critiques on either side of Lister’s position. In my mind, the most substantial idea is that by believing God needs to suffer, we place him in subjection to evil. An interesting and perhaps valid point. Also, Lister’s insistence that Jesus comes to redeem sinners, not only to suffer, is illuminating. God has emotions; they are just not like our emotions. It seems the next logical step is to define further what exactly divine emotion is.
I’m cautious in my assessment, however, because of my naivete. Overall, a good and essential book.
92% God is Not Like You or Me
I’m cautious in my assessment, however, because of my naivete. Overall, a good and essential book.
92% God is Not Like You or Me
Read
September 14, 2023A pretty good argument here for the idea that God has an emotional life, but that emotional life is not like ours, because, well, God is ontologically not like us. The key distinction that Lister wants to make is that while we can be controlled by our emotions at times, surprised or blindsided by them, God's emotional life is voluntary and not unexpected, rooted in trinitarian relations and God's covenant engagement with humanity.
Lister is a Reformed theologian, so he doesn't really address the issue of how God might react to (emotionally or otherwise) to the actions of the free beings (humans) that he has created. But otherwise, Lister's argument is consistent, if repetitive at times.
Lister is a Reformed theologian, so he doesn't really address the issue of how God might react to (emotionally or otherwise) to the actions of the free beings (humans) that he has created. But otherwise, Lister's argument is consistent, if repetitive at times.
September 11, 2023
The classical doctrine of Impassibility is in an interesting place in modern thought. Up until the modern era, Divine Impassibility has been affirmed in one way or another by most theologians, yet a God who is not moved by passions or does not suffer is unsavoury to our modern sensibilities.
The author does a careful survey of the historical development of this doctrine from Patristic and Medieval literature to the Reformers, highlighting what was it about the Divine Nature they were trying to affirm by affirming Divine Impassibility. He also highlights modern theologians who are proponents of a passible divine nature and their arguments. He pays special attention to Cyril of Alexandria as he affirmed that Christ suffered humanly but not divinely, yet retained a faithful Chalcedonian Christology.
Toward the end of the book, he gives his own formulation on Divine Impassibility, which was developed over his treatment of the church fathers. His formulation is as such:
1. The divine nature is invulnerable to involuntary suffering or passions.
2. Divine Passion (as opposed to human passion) is ontologically transcendent in that it is entirely volitional and works together with perfect rationality. It is in this sense that we can call God Impassible.
3. Divine Passion is ethically transcendent in that He is perfectly passionate and there is no sin in in this passion. It neither waxes nor wanes. It does not get any more vibrant than it is now. It is in this sense that God is described as impassioned.
The author does a careful survey of the historical development of this doctrine from Patristic and Medieval literature to the Reformers, highlighting what was it about the Divine Nature they were trying to affirm by affirming Divine Impassibility. He also highlights modern theologians who are proponents of a passible divine nature and their arguments. He pays special attention to Cyril of Alexandria as he affirmed that Christ suffered humanly but not divinely, yet retained a faithful Chalcedonian Christology.
Toward the end of the book, he gives his own formulation on Divine Impassibility, which was developed over his treatment of the church fathers. His formulation is as such:
1. The divine nature is invulnerable to involuntary suffering or passions.
2. Divine Passion (as opposed to human passion) is ontologically transcendent in that it is entirely volitional and works together with perfect rationality. It is in this sense that we can call God Impassible.
3. Divine Passion is ethically transcendent in that He is perfectly passionate and there is no sin in in this passion. It neither waxes nor wanes. It does not get any more vibrant than it is now. It is in this sense that God is described as impassioned.
January 18, 2013
God is Impassible and Impassioned: Toward a Theology of Divine Emotion by Rob Lister
The thesis by many modern theologians that God cannot truly love his people if he cannot suffer in his divine nature is taken to be an inarguable assumption by many today. The attack on those who wish to see God as impassible coincides with a wrong-headed assumption that to be unchanging is to be void of any real emotions. Yet, this is exactly the point that Rob Lister in his new book entitled God is Impassible and Impassioned seeks to counter head on. To begin, Lister understands ‘that God is impassible in the sense that he cannot be manipulated, overwhelmed, or surprised into an emotional interaction that he does not desire to have or allow to happen.’ Furthermore, ‘God is impassioned (i.e. perfectly vibrant in his affections) , and he may be affected by his creatures, but as God, he is so in ways that accord rather than conflict with his will to be so affected by those whom, in love, he has made’ (36). In essence, God cannot be caught off guard like the jack in the box toy for children, nor does he garner feeling and emotions that are contrary to his character.
Working through the common Hellenization Hypothesis, Lister goes onto state that the main references to Philo, Stoicism and Plotinus do not clearly yield a pathway to belief in a God who is unchangeable and passionless. Lister writes, “In none of these philosophical systems, however, is there an espousal of a personal, creator deity marked by absolute emotional detachment from his creation” (61). Furthermore, borrowing Greek concepts and thought forms doesn’t necessarily mean that all early theologians left biblical authority behind. After surveying the thought of Irenaeus, Origen, Augustine, Justin Martyr and others, Lister mentions that although there is development in thought early on, the early church fathers were clear to uphold both a God who is not caught offguard by his creation but one who enters into relationship with them through emotions. Some of the key points Lister makes is that “ the representatives of the qualified impassibility model are committed to the importance of the Creator/creature distinction.” Lister writes further down, “they affirmed a meaningful category of divine emotion, though qualified analogously “ (102). Why does this matter? For one, the Creator/creature distinction is important because it lends credence to the powerful work of God in creation over his creation and secondly, it marks a balance between God’s transcendence and his immanence. Furthermore, by seeing divine emotion through analogy, the Fathers sought to discard the notion that human emotional categories translate to divine categories of emotion in a one to one correspondence. Rather, we understand divine emotions through the biblical texts and then seek to draw analogies to humans from that starting point.
In his discussion of Jurgen Moltmann’s work on The Crucified God, Lister makes a point that we should not miss by writing, “..it is every bit as problematic to abstract, isolate, and therefore misinterpret an event from the economy of redemption – even if that event is the cross – by reading it as the totality of the divine reality, as Moltmann has done. This kind of reading fails to acknowledge that Scripture presents us with a package including both the narration of key redemptive historical events and the interpretation of those events” (245). Moltmann wants to assert the main point of the cross to be God identifying with the suffering of his people through his own suffering, therefore, bringing a sense of solidarity to his people. As you can see, there is no hint of the death of Jesus for the purpose of saving sinners, redeeming the lost, taking the sin upon his shoulders and giving us his righteousness. Where I think Lister could have gone further in his discussion is to bring up the redemptive historical events and their interpretation in connection with seeing the grand story of Scripture. Moltmann fails to see the hope of Israel, the longing of a people for a coming King, and the way in which the Creator God intervenes in the life of his creation. Lister’s reminder of the distinction between Creator/creature and transcendence/immanence gives way to a more biblical and holistic understanding of the coming of Jesus, while not falling into a collapse of the event being the totality of meaning . Consequently, what happens in Moltmann’s thought is that God’s suffering on the cross in his being is an ontological necessity that must take place for his love to be real for others.
Lister in the rest of the book lays the groundwork for a theology of an unchanging impassioned God. The end of the book is a foray into understanding the passions of God in the sense of his emotions. Lister does a good job at balancing the perfection of God with the emotions of God. Using Edwards, Piper and others at his disposal, Lister paints a picture of God that is both biblically faithful and theologically sound. I hope this book finds its way into the hands of many readers.
Thanks to Crossway for the review copy of this book in exchange for review.
The thesis by many modern theologians that God cannot truly love his people if he cannot suffer in his divine nature is taken to be an inarguable assumption by many today. The attack on those who wish to see God as impassible coincides with a wrong-headed assumption that to be unchanging is to be void of any real emotions. Yet, this is exactly the point that Rob Lister in his new book entitled God is Impassible and Impassioned seeks to counter head on. To begin, Lister understands ‘that God is impassible in the sense that he cannot be manipulated, overwhelmed, or surprised into an emotional interaction that he does not desire to have or allow to happen.’ Furthermore, ‘God is impassioned (i.e. perfectly vibrant in his affections) , and he may be affected by his creatures, but as God, he is so in ways that accord rather than conflict with his will to be so affected by those whom, in love, he has made’ (36). In essence, God cannot be caught off guard like the jack in the box toy for children, nor does he garner feeling and emotions that are contrary to his character.
Working through the common Hellenization Hypothesis, Lister goes onto state that the main references to Philo, Stoicism and Plotinus do not clearly yield a pathway to belief in a God who is unchangeable and passionless. Lister writes, “In none of these philosophical systems, however, is there an espousal of a personal, creator deity marked by absolute emotional detachment from his creation” (61). Furthermore, borrowing Greek concepts and thought forms doesn’t necessarily mean that all early theologians left biblical authority behind. After surveying the thought of Irenaeus, Origen, Augustine, Justin Martyr and others, Lister mentions that although there is development in thought early on, the early church fathers were clear to uphold both a God who is not caught offguard by his creation but one who enters into relationship with them through emotions. Some of the key points Lister makes is that “ the representatives of the qualified impassibility model are committed to the importance of the Creator/creature distinction.” Lister writes further down, “they affirmed a meaningful category of divine emotion, though qualified analogously “ (102). Why does this matter? For one, the Creator/creature distinction is important because it lends credence to the powerful work of God in creation over his creation and secondly, it marks a balance between God’s transcendence and his immanence. Furthermore, by seeing divine emotion through analogy, the Fathers sought to discard the notion that human emotional categories translate to divine categories of emotion in a one to one correspondence. Rather, we understand divine emotions through the biblical texts and then seek to draw analogies to humans from that starting point.
In his discussion of Jurgen Moltmann’s work on The Crucified God, Lister makes a point that we should not miss by writing, “..it is every bit as problematic to abstract, isolate, and therefore misinterpret an event from the economy of redemption – even if that event is the cross – by reading it as the totality of the divine reality, as Moltmann has done. This kind of reading fails to acknowledge that Scripture presents us with a package including both the narration of key redemptive historical events and the interpretation of those events” (245). Moltmann wants to assert the main point of the cross to be God identifying with the suffering of his people through his own suffering, therefore, bringing a sense of solidarity to his people. As you can see, there is no hint of the death of Jesus for the purpose of saving sinners, redeeming the lost, taking the sin upon his shoulders and giving us his righteousness. Where I think Lister could have gone further in his discussion is to bring up the redemptive historical events and their interpretation in connection with seeing the grand story of Scripture. Moltmann fails to see the hope of Israel, the longing of a people for a coming King, and the way in which the Creator God intervenes in the life of his creation. Lister’s reminder of the distinction between Creator/creature and transcendence/immanence gives way to a more biblical and holistic understanding of the coming of Jesus, while not falling into a collapse of the event being the totality of meaning . Consequently, what happens in Moltmann’s thought is that God’s suffering on the cross in his being is an ontological necessity that must take place for his love to be real for others.
Lister in the rest of the book lays the groundwork for a theology of an unchanging impassioned God. The end of the book is a foray into understanding the passions of God in the sense of his emotions. Lister does a good job at balancing the perfection of God with the emotions of God. Using Edwards, Piper and others at his disposal, Lister paints a picture of God that is both biblically faithful and theologically sound. I hope this book finds its way into the hands of many readers.
Thanks to Crossway for the review copy of this book in exchange for review.
July 10, 2025
An important book since impassibility is a difficult but important topic. Lister's two pronged approach is helpful as often the focus is more on the negative side rather than a balance of positive and negative.
November 16, 2019
Not a helpful book.
September 17, 2020
I approached this book with interest in examining some of the tensions that have arisen in my mind over the years respecting particular passages of scripture. As with any philosophical writing, the author quickly identified tensions I hadn’t yet confronted as he answered those I had. Lister does an excellent job of outlining the issue and partitioning the various facets and perspectives. He builds a helpful theology and defends it well (it is his dissertation after all). Even if you find yourself in disagreement with his conclusions, you will be well challenged and confronted with helpful Scripture, theology and philosophy.
August 20, 2014
Disclosure: I went to seminary with the author and know him, though distantly.
This book is an excellent introduction, and proposed model, to the subject of divine emotion. I had never actually thought much about this particular aspect of God. But Lister makes the subject very approachable and understandable to the non-expert (though the book is bursting with footnotes). He does a good job of showing all of the related issues that are implicated in one's understanding of divine emotion; thus showing why it's important for Christians in particular to have a good understanding of the emotional facet of God's nature.
Lister takes the first several chapters showing the importance of divine impassibility and then showing that the doctrine has a long track record among Christians, going back to the foundational years of the Church Fathers, and then exploring more recent defenders. He also does a good job of explaining the divine passibilist position, especially recent defenders, and what seems to motivate them. I think his analysis in this section is quite accurate. I also greatly appreciated Lister's early criticism of the Hellenization thesis that goes back to von Harnack, or one might even say to Tertullian ("What hath Jerusalem to do with Athens?").
The chapters that I found most intriguing though were the later ones where Lister develops his theological model of God being "impassible and impassioned" thus defending a form of the traditional impassibilist doctrine. I especially appreciated his detailed remarks in Chapter 7 on the importance of understanding divine predication analogically, though in very specific ways.
I found the overall thesis and model of the book very compelling. Though Lister's volume is mainly about divine emotion, I believe his approach provides a good example for doing theology in general. I would describe his methodology has having a strong biblical basis that is historically, and philosophically, informed. As a philosopher and a biblicist, I especially was grateful with Lister's biblical approach to defending aspects of classical theism. I think his theological methodology is one to be emulated by philosophical and analytic theologians who wish to remain faithful to the biblical revelation.
I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in divine emotion or theological interests in general. Though the book is probably a bit more technical than a popular theology text, I think most anyone could read it profitably and appreciatively.
This book is an excellent introduction, and proposed model, to the subject of divine emotion. I had never actually thought much about this particular aspect of God. But Lister makes the subject very approachable and understandable to the non-expert (though the book is bursting with footnotes). He does a good job of showing all of the related issues that are implicated in one's understanding of divine emotion; thus showing why it's important for Christians in particular to have a good understanding of the emotional facet of God's nature.
Lister takes the first several chapters showing the importance of divine impassibility and then showing that the doctrine has a long track record among Christians, going back to the foundational years of the Church Fathers, and then exploring more recent defenders. He also does a good job of explaining the divine passibilist position, especially recent defenders, and what seems to motivate them. I think his analysis in this section is quite accurate. I also greatly appreciated Lister's early criticism of the Hellenization thesis that goes back to von Harnack, or one might even say to Tertullian ("What hath Jerusalem to do with Athens?").
The chapters that I found most intriguing though were the later ones where Lister develops his theological model of God being "impassible and impassioned" thus defending a form of the traditional impassibilist doctrine. I especially appreciated his detailed remarks in Chapter 7 on the importance of understanding divine predication analogically, though in very specific ways.
I found the overall thesis and model of the book very compelling. Though Lister's volume is mainly about divine emotion, I believe his approach provides a good example for doing theology in general. I would describe his methodology has having a strong biblical basis that is historically, and philosophically, informed. As a philosopher and a biblicist, I especially was grateful with Lister's biblical approach to defending aspects of classical theism. I think his theological methodology is one to be emulated by philosophical and analytic theologians who wish to remain faithful to the biblical revelation.
I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in divine emotion or theological interests in general. Though the book is probably a bit more technical than a popular theology text, I think most anyone could read it profitably and appreciatively.
December 31, 2014
Top notch book, heavy going in places, but I particularly found the last chapter a real joy to read.
Lister deals with the question of Does God Suffer, and brings a great amount of clarity from scripture and church history as to what is meant when theologians have said that God is without passions. Several authors I have come across recently have disputed the idea of the impassibility of God--all evangelical writers, saying in as many words that it is time to get rid of this Greek philosophical idea.
In a thorough survey of the ancient writers Lister shows that they were not heedlessly imbibing Greek philosophy as often accused. And far from 'impassible' meaning that God is a cold emotionless entity, he displays that what is meant is that God is not a victim of external circumstances, or internal conflicts, in the same way we are. He is never caught off guard, or surprised by any activity, much less having any uncontrolled emotion wrung from him.
But this is not to say that God is emotionless--far from it. Lister anchors the emotional responsiveness (as we perceive it) in the very nature of God as Trinity, and in his covenants with his creation. The world and its people are formed out of the overflowing love and delight of God within the trinity, which is the very heart of his impassionedness.
The last chapter looks at the incarnation and crucifixion of Jesus and Lister demonstrates richly in the interconnectedness of a variety of theological concepts, that God had to become man in order to suffer in our place. But in suffering in our place, the very essence of God is not suffering, or defined by this suffering, nor is the Trinity rent asunder as some are fond of saying.
Lister deals with the question of Does God Suffer, and brings a great amount of clarity from scripture and church history as to what is meant when theologians have said that God is without passions. Several authors I have come across recently have disputed the idea of the impassibility of God--all evangelical writers, saying in as many words that it is time to get rid of this Greek philosophical idea.
In a thorough survey of the ancient writers Lister shows that they were not heedlessly imbibing Greek philosophy as often accused. And far from 'impassible' meaning that God is a cold emotionless entity, he displays that what is meant is that God is not a victim of external circumstances, or internal conflicts, in the same way we are. He is never caught off guard, or surprised by any activity, much less having any uncontrolled emotion wrung from him.
But this is not to say that God is emotionless--far from it. Lister anchors the emotional responsiveness (as we perceive it) in the very nature of God as Trinity, and in his covenants with his creation. The world and its people are formed out of the overflowing love and delight of God within the trinity, which is the very heart of his impassionedness.
The last chapter looks at the incarnation and crucifixion of Jesus and Lister demonstrates richly in the interconnectedness of a variety of theological concepts, that God had to become man in order to suffer in our place. But in suffering in our place, the very essence of God is not suffering, or defined by this suffering, nor is the Trinity rent asunder as some are fond of saying.
November 30, 2019
Really clarifying. I don’t think any other doctrine is as misunderstood today as impassibility, and Lister does an excellent job demonstrating from scripture that God can be both impassible yet experience genuine emotion.
October 19, 2013
Does God experience emotions, passions, grief, anger, joy, etc., as we humans do? Does God share in our suffering? These are important questions and this is an important work on the debate of divine impassibility. I thoroughly enjoyed the book; it is very well written, insightful, and clear. But the reason I only give three stars is because I'm just not quite convinced of his thesis. It is clearly articulated and repeated (again and again), but I don't think he adequately proved it. Also, I'm not convinced he accurately represents Reformed tradition either. Admittedly, I need to read more on the subject. But regardless, this is a very important doctrine that has many ramification in theology, worship, preaching, and counseling. Reading this book definitely showed me how important this issue is and the many ramifications it can have in our view of God. Though I give it three stars for proving his thesis, I highly recommend the book!
September 8, 2015
This is a great overview of the doctrine of Impassibility. While this is not meant to be an in-depth study, it does its best to examine the doctrine's history, challenges, and application. Lister's goal is to clarify Impassibility by showing how God is indeed impassible, and yet feels passion.
It is a careful slow read. As most books of this type, it sometimes tries to parse truths that cannot be known. I found it of great benefit though as it provided some solid discussion on a belief I've always struggled with.
It also includes a great bibliography for further study. In my mind, it accomplished what Ware was trying to do with his book on Christ's human nature.
It is a careful slow read. As most books of this type, it sometimes tries to parse truths that cannot be known. I found it of great benefit though as it provided some solid discussion on a belief I've always struggled with.
It also includes a great bibliography for further study. In my mind, it accomplished what Ware was trying to do with his book on Christ's human nature.
March 11, 2015
Much of broader evangelicalism has attempted to define God's nature by the cross, going so far as to say that the point of Christ's suffering was to console humanity in knowing that He feels our pain. This is known as passibilism, or the view that God's emotions can be thrust upon him as events occur. In contrast, Lister rehearses the historic orthodox view that God is impassable and yet also deliberately passionate. The emotional experience of God must be defined biblically and divinely, without reading our finite, fallen emotional experience into His.
September 7, 2013
This is a tremendous work of scholarship, while at the same time very readable. Lister tackles a difficult topic in an engaging and thorough manner. In addition, this is not simply a scholarly treatise, but a work that biblically sets forth an understanding of the living God who is impassible and impassioned.
September 14, 2013
A good, short investigation of divine impassibility. Very repetitive and is actually more valuable for its critique and presentation of modern passibilist claims (i.e. Moltmann) than for its positive arguments.
September 7, 2013
Really enjoyed this book. I wished Lister would have spent more time on the incarnation and impassability.
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews