That's what I meant, yes.
No, to be immutable simple means that God's essence is always consistent and in harmony. Mutor, mutari, mutatus -- I change. First conjugation deponent verb. (One of the about 3 that I remember from 7th grade.)"Mutation" is a modern cognate (See the 3rd principle part, mutatus). So immutable means unchangeable. SO I think we must be looking at the word differently.
Well, if you look at Websters 1828 you will see that it is also defined as 'the quality that renders change or alteration impossible', alteration is in turn defined as 'the act of making different or of varying in some particular.
So, God is immutable in that He doesn't change, that all of His attributes always act in full accord with one another, never deviating from their own particular perfections which are always absolute and infinite.
So, to be immutable for God is not to be immobile since Love is always active.
Gen 1:31 doesn't say He enjoyed it. The relevant part says .... hummeda hummeda, Berishith, got it right here ...."And Elohim saw all that he had done/made and behold, very good." To say that that verse says He "enjoyed it" is to assume what's to be proved. All the text offers is an assessment of it.
God gave an assessment of it and called it good.
God thus, was pleased with it.
God took pleasure in His Son (Mat.17:5).
He says that without faith it is impossible to please Him (Heb.11:6), so He is pleased by faith, as indicated by the listing of those names in that chapter.
I'm more or less fine with everything you say after the big chunk of my blather,but I"m not entirely sure of the relevance. UNLESS you're saying that in your view God's passions are not unruly and so do not conflict with His will, which we would also say of Jesus. I would NOT say that the failure to experience a feeling of affection for one's spouse is a sin. It might be a sign of our fallen state, (passion out of sync with will) but it's not itself sinful, anymore than a headache or an itch is sinful in itself.
Anytime a Christian is not bearing the fruits of the Spirit (Gal.5:22-23), he is sinning.
One is either in the Spirit or in the Flesh. (Rom.6)
Look: I know I'm setting myself up for a huge brick wall down the road. Specifically I have no clue about how/whether the Incarnation changes the immutable God. But I'm pretty clear that outside of the period between the Nativity and the Resurrection things didn't "happen to" God. It's a very fine question, because ti touches on so many very basic questions.
Nothing ever happens to God, God allows certain things to occur, but He always knows the end from the beginning and is always acting to complete His Plan, which is a perfect Universe without sin and death.
They were calling God "immutable" before Webster was a gleam in his daddy's eye. Heck, they were calling Him immutable before English was a gleam in the OED's eye! or Shakespeare's eye!
That is my silly way of saying what somebody else said, namely: words like Passion and immutable are almost "terms of art' in theology, and a great part of the problem is vocabulary, I'd guess.
Similarly with "pleased" and "pleasure". In the quote you offer we got "ευδοκησα". I haul out the Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich and I find .... uh .... ευδοκεω to no one's surprise. And the first meaning is "consider good, consent, determine" and the second is, wait for it ... " be well pleased, take delight" and they show a number of places in the LXX where it means for God to take pleasure in someone.
Thou payest thy money and thou takest thy choice, I guess.
Anytime a Christian is not bearing the fruits of the Spirit (Gal.5:22-23), he is sinning.
One is either in the Spirit or in the Flesh. (Rom.6) Yeah, but I don't get the relevance. I bear some of my best fruits when I don't feel like it.
Nothing ever happens to God, God allows certain things to occur,...
Here's where we need some serious front porch with lemonade time. To me the phrase "happens to God" would include the things He allows to happen to Him (Which would be the only things that could "happen to" Him.) I'm guessing you are using the phrase to include something like "without His consent" and "catches Him by surprise" (which seems to be the Process theology stand and the main part of why I dumped Process Theology. I couldn't wrap my mind around God saying,"Son of GUN! Look at THAT! Who'da thunk it?!)
But more to the point, and this is coming together in a way, am I correct in understanding you to say that nothing "happens to" God unless He willed it first? Would that be an acceptable formulation?
Let me parse my "model" for passion, and then distinguish it from what I think you are saying:
I walk along the store fronts in the Mall. I am dieting (as always) I pass the Ice Cream Sundae store. Without my permission, my mouth waters, and images and recollections of previous Sundaes dance in my head.
My thitherto manly and purposeful stride visibly falters. Thoughts of whatever trinket I was about to buy from Radio Shack suddenly fade. My steps slow and I turn ninety degrees and assume an attitude of thoughtfulness. "After all," I say, "A geegaw from Radio shack is but a means to an end, while a Hot Fudge Sundae on coffee ice cream with marshmallow AND whipped Cream is an end in itself!" All recollection of the frustration I underwent when trying to fasten the trouser button that morning have fled from my mind. Luther hovers before my inner eye, whispering,"Sin boldly!" ....
(This is why I avoid malls ...) But I'm facetiously trying to convey how passion among human type personnel clouds the intellect, damages memory, impedes judgment, and weakens the entire apparatus of will. It USES intellective and volitional tools, like memory and imagination, but what I am chiefly remembering is the delight of my mouth and the experience of the wonderful and addictive insulin rush we get when we carb out.
You Protestants may mock us "idolatrous" Catholics with our jujus and amulets, but I gotta tell you, my miraculous medal bumping up against my sternum or the little cross I keep in my pocket has more than once reminded me that I can call on Divine assistance and get help remembering that it is better to enter heaven with no tummy at all than with a 44 inch waist and a smile on my lips to go to perdition ...
On the other hand, and this is still about passion, I have found that when I am at the range (on a good day) I can send six rounds into the COM of my Q target fairly well when I do so dispassionately. But to send them in FAST, I have to whip up some anger. I have to tense my muscles, and imagine that target is shooting at me. When I'm done, there's a grimace on my face, and i have to calm down a little.
So for us humans, passion is energetic, but the energy can work with or against our will and better judgment.
For the redeemed I suppose we can look forward to having our "affections" line up with our will. And while we would say God is perfect Will, I take it you would say that God has "feelings", but they are always aligned with His will and responsive to it, and NOT spontaneous or arising from who knows where, as human feelings can be.
AM I close?