Having thus made our basic perspective on the matter clear, we want to recommend Bob’s articles on our blog once again. Bob is our friend, but, more importantly, he also happens to be on the right side of the issue in our judgment. In fact, we also share his sorrow over the unnecessary division that has arisen concerning the issue in some quarters in recent years.
At any rate, the first article Bob published that touches on the matter was actually written in response to an article by James Renihan concerning whether or not we should speak either of God or of believers as “passionate.” Here is the link:
In this article Bob concludes:
Are you passionate for that which is contrary to God’s revealed will? Then you do need to repent. Are you passionate for God, his worship, and the advance of his gospel? If so, please don’t repent! Instead, pray for more passion in order that you might be passionate as your heavenly Father is passionate.
Then there is a four part series of articles dealing more directly with the doctrine of divine impassibility. Here they are in order:
Bob states his ultimate conclusion thusly:
So we affirm that God is self-contained, independent, and wholly satisfied with himself. He possesses a kind of joy that cannot be marred. Yet, we also affirm that within the matrix of time and space, God expresses various cognitive-affective valuations such as grief, sorrow, anger, pleasure, love, hatred, jealousy, joy, and peace in ways that are perfectly consistent with his unchanging “being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.” Accordingly, God’s transcendent qualities — his sovereignty, immutability, and eternality — remain intact.
We highly recommend reading all five of these articles, and we would also encourage reading from the other side of the issue, such as God Without Passions: A Reader, edited by Samuel Renihan, who lays out his own view in the “Introduction to the Reader.” We have friends on both sides of the debate, and, as indicated above, we believe that those on both sides of the debate are well within the bounds of Reformed orthodoxy, even if we come down on one side rather than the other.
