Replies

If the confession meant a different meaning for passions, it would seem the confession would spell out the difference. Particularly since its list in this part seems to echo the orthodox writings that do not have such a caveat.

I suppose I figure they did this implicitly, since otherwise there are direct contradictions within the same paragraph. I would think it was proofread first, etc. :)

With your modification, passions="weakness of passion" you still have the problem of violating immutability, unchanging.

I don't understand. The "without" doesn't apply to that. Granted, the sentence may not have the best structure in the world, but the meaning is clear enough I think. We believe that God is immutable and unchanging. But that does not mean God must be a static being. He can have the capacity to love and hate and still be unchanging. God can walk and chew gum and the same time etc. Immutable carries with it the idea of consistency. So, if one thing made God angry today, but the same thing did not tomorrow, then that would violate immutability. But God is always consistent.

I'm not sure also what distinction you make between "passion" and "weaknesses of passion that humans so often fall into". Are there passions with weakness and passions without?

Well, for example on the one hand there is a grounded, sobering love, and on the other is a self-destructive, obsessive "love". There is anger that causes rash and unwise, impulsive decisions, and there is righteous anger. I just meant that with all the emotions, God always correctly shows them. We humans misuse our emotions all the time. :)

We believe that God is immutable and unchanging. But that does not mean God must be a static being.

If your definition of static in this case includes unchanging, changeless, that's exactly what it means. I think you are confusing this with the immaterial energies of the Holy Trinity or Godhead.

He can have the capacity to love and hate and still be unchanging. God can walk and chew gum and the same time

God is changelessly experiencing the emotions of love and hate? This is internally inconsistent.

Immutable carries with it the idea of consistency.

It carries with it the idea of not changing!

So, if one thing made God angry today, but the same thing did not tomorrow, then that would violate immutability.

If God hates something today and loves something tomorrow it violates immutability, so you postulate an unchanging infinite immaterial ball of conflicting emotions. Turn the microscope around.

You seem to be stretching here, FK, think about it: You have God experiencing simultaneous unchanging opposing emotions. It's a demi-human God that fails the further you take it.

Well, for example on the one hand there is a grounded, sobering love, and on the other is a self-destructive, obsessive "love".

This isn't love or isn't a fault of loving. We confuse many things for love. God's love through us is not an emotion; but this is another topic...

There is anger that causes rash and unwise, impulsive decisions, and there is righteous anger.

"Anyone who is angry with his brother.."

I just meant that with all the emotions, God always correctly shows them.

Perfect anger, lust, pride, envy... :)

We humans misuse our emotions all the time.

We misuse our God-given instincts. Emotions are instinctual states. Applying animal instincts to God leads us to strange theology.

Thanks for your reply as always, FK...