Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T09:30:02.387Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Patripassianism, Theopaschitism and the Suffering of God. Some Historical and Systematic Considerations1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2008

Marcel Sarot
Marcel Sarot
Affiliation:
Bunnik, The Netherlands
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In contemporary theology the doctrine of divine impassibility is a hot issue. The doubts about this doctrine in the present century have their earliest roots in British theology, where we can trace the passibilist tendency back to the last ten years of the nineteenth century. It received a powerful impetus from the First World War, and by the time the Second World War broke out it was almost generally accepted in British theology that God suffered. Since then this tendency has spread to the rest of Europe, notably to France and Germany, to the United States and to Asia. Although it cannot be denied that most of the theologians who explicitly state their views on divine impassibility, hold that this doctrine is to a greater or lesser degree false, the debate over this issue is far from closed. Recently Richard Creel published a thorough study in defence of divine impassibility, which, I expect, will prove quite influential. Apart from him some other theologians defend the doctrine as well. Moreover, the fact that many authors consider it necessary at present to write books and articles in defence of divine passibility also indicates that the truth of the passibilist position is not yet taken for granted by everyone.

Type
Articles
Information
Religious Studies , Volume 26 , Issue 3 , September 1990 , pp. 363 - 375
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 Egmond, A. van, De Lijdende God in de Britse Theologie van de Negentiende Eeuw: De Bijdrage van Newman, Maurice, McLeod Campbell en Gore aan de Christelijke Theopaschitische Traditie (Amsterdam, 1986), pp. 23–5.Google Scholar

3 Cf. Egmond, Van, op. cit. pp. 25–6;Google ScholarMozley, J. Kenneth, The Impassibility of God: a Survey of Christian Thought (Cambridge, 1926), pp. 157–60;Google Scholar Id. Some Tendencies in British Theology: From the Publication of Lux Mundi to the Present Day (London, 1951), p. 51;Google ScholarHouse, Francis, ‘The Barrier of Impassibility’, Theology, LXXXIII (1980), 415.Google Scholar

4 Typical of the British situation at that time is the following remark, made by Waterhouse, E. S. in a review of H. Wheeler Robinson's Suffering Human and Divine:Google Scholar‘…he insists that God suffers, but that is no longer a heresy’. (Journal of Theological Studies, XLII (1941), 114);Google Scholar Cf. Doctrine in the Church of England: the Report of the Commission on Christian Doctrine Appointed by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York in 1922 (London, 1938), pp. 55–6.Google Scholar The most comprehensive survey of the passibilist tendency in pre-war British theology is still that by Mozley, , The Impassibility of God, pp. 127–66.Google Scholar

5 On passibilist tendencies in modern theology, see Bauckham, Richard, ‘“Only the Suffering God Can Help”: Divine Passibility in Modern Theology’, Themelios, IX (1984), 6–12Google ScholarMcWilliams, Warren, The Passion of God: Divine Suffering in Contemporary Protestant Theology (Macon, 1985);Google ScholarEgmond, Van, op. cit. pp. 28–31;Google Scholar Id. ‘Theopaschitische Tendenzen in de Na-Oorlogse Protestantse Theologie’, Gereformeerd Theologisch Tijdschrift LXXIX (1979), 161–77;Google ScholarSarot, Marcel, ‘De Passibilitas Dei in de Hedendaagse Westerse Theologie: Een Literatuuroverzicht’, Kerk en Theologie XL–XLIII (1989), 196–206.Google Scholar

6 See the literature cited in the preceding note, and also: Goetz, Ronald, ‘The Suffering God: the Rise of a New Orthodoxy’, The Christian Century, CIII (1986), 385–9.Google Scholar

7 Creel, Richard E., Divine Impassibility: an Essay in Philosophical Theology (Cambridge, 1986).Google Scholar

8 See, for instance, Davies, Brian, Thinking about God (London, 1985), pp. 155–8;Google ScholarPubMedHill, William J., ‘Does Divine Love Entail Suffering in God?’, in Clarke, B. L. and Long, E. T. (Eds.), God and Temporality (New York, 1984), pp. 55–71;Google ScholarNicolas, Jean-Hervé, ‘Aimante et Bienheureuse Trinité’, Revue Thomiste, LXXVIII (1978), 271–92.Google Scholar

9 There is a categorical difference between ‘impassibility’ on the one hand and ‘theopaschitism’ and ‘patripassianism’ on the other hand: ‘impassibility’ is used to denote a property of God, whereas ‘theopaschitism’ and ‘patripassianism’ are used to denote currents in theology. Someone who holds that God is impassible is – with a word less frequently employed – an ‘impassibilist’; the trend in theology holding that God is impassible is called ‘impassibilism’.

10 Frohnhofen, Herbert, Apatheia tou Theou: über die Affektlosigkeit Gottes in der griechischen Antike und bei den griechischsprachigen Kirchenvätern bis zu Gregorios Thaumaturgos (Frankfurt aM, 1987), pp. 30–4, 120 et passim;Google ScholarMaas, Wilhelm, Unveränderlichkeit Gottes: Zum Verhältnis von griechisch-philosophischer und christlicher Gotteslehre (München, 1974), p. 47 et passim.Google Scholar Cf. Rüther, Th., Die sittliche Forderung der Apatheia in den beiden ersten christlichen Jahrhunderten und bei Klemens Alexandrinus: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des christlichen Vollkommenheitsbegriffes (Freiburg, 1949), p. 51 et passim.Google Scholar

11 Frohnhofen, , op. cit. p. 32;Google Scholar cf. Owen, Huw P., Concepts of Deity (London 1971), p. 23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 See Frohnhofen, , loc. cit. for the most important texts from Plato.Google Scholar

13 R¨ther, , loc. cit.;Google Scholar Cf. on Gregory Thaumaturgus: Crouzel, Henri, ‘La Passion de l'Impassible: Un Essai Apologétique du III Siècle’, in l'Homme devant Dieu: Mélanges Offerts au Père Henri de Lubac, vol. 1 (Paris 1963), p. 277 n. 28.Google Scholar

14 Frohnhofen, , op. cit. pp. 34–7, 39–41, 120 et passim;Google ScholarLee, Jung Young, God Suffers for Us: a Systematic Inquiry into a Concept of Divine Passibility (Den Haag, 1974), pp. 28–30;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Cf. Elert, Werner, ‘Die theopaschitische Formel’, Theologische Literaturzeitung LXXV (1950), 196;Google ScholarIdem, Die Ausgang der altkirchlichen Christologie: Eine Untersuchung ¨ber Theodor von Pharan und seine Zeit als Einführung in die alte Dogmengeschichte, aus dem Nachlass herausgegeben von Wilhelm Maurer und Elisabeth Bergsträsser (Berlin, 1957), p. 74;Google ScholarCrouzel, , loc. cit.;Google ScholarPire, Henri-Dominique, ‘Sur l'Emploi des Termes Apatheia et Eleos dans les Oeuvres de Clément d'Alexandrie’, Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques XXVII (1938), 428.Google Scholar I intend the term ‘emotion’ here in its most general sense, not distinguishing it from affections, passions and the like.

15 Frohnhofen, , op. cit. pp. 38–41;Google ScholarMozley, , op. cit. p. 1;Google ScholarElert, , op. cit. p. 74;Google Scholar Id., ‘Die theopaschitische Formel’, cc. 196–7.

16 Augustine, , De Civitate Dei IX, 4;Google Scholar Cf. Bauckham, , op. cit. p. 7;Google ScholarMozley, , op. cit. p. 100;Google ScholarHeschel, Abraham, The Prophets (New York, 1962), pp. 247–8;Google ScholarDechesne, B., ‘Parsie’, in Brink, H. (Ed.), Theologisch Woordenboek III (Roermond en Maaseik 1958), c. 3718.Google Scholar

17 For examples I refer to Heschel, , loc. cit.;Google ScholarMozley, , op. cit. pp. 44–5, 81, 104, 108.Google Scholar

18 Prestige, G. L., God in Patristic Thought (London, 1936), pp. 6–7.Google Scholar

19 Creel, , op. cit. pp. 3–9.Google Scholar The eight definitions are: ‘lacking all emotions’, ‘in a state of mind that is imperturbable’, ‘insusceptible to distraction from resolve’, ‘having a will determined entirely by oneself’, ‘cannot be affected by an outside force’, ‘cannot be prevented from achieving one's purpose’, ‘has no susceptibility to negative emotions’ and ‘cannot be affected by an outside force or changed by oneself’

20 Creel, , op. cit. p. 11 (his italics).Google Scholar

21 Creel, , loc. cit.Google Scholar

22 Creel, , loc. cit.Google Scholar

23 On the distinction between causal relations and personal relations, see Brümmer, Vincent, Over een Persoonlijke God Gesproken: Studies in de Wijsgerige Theologie (Kampen, 1988), pp. 86–119, 156–63.Google Scholar

24 Heschel, , op. cit. p. 225.Google Scholar A similar position is held by Brown, David, Continental Philosophy and Modern Theology: an Engagement (Oxford, 1987), pp. 44–5;Google ScholarFiddes, Paul, The Creative Suffering of God (Oxford, 1988), pp. 68, 74;Google ScholarGalot, Jean, Dieu Souffre-t-Il? (Paris, 1976), pp. 153–5;Google ScholarHryniewicz, Waclaw, ‘Le Dieu Souffrant? Réflexions sur la Notion Chrétienne de Dieu’, église et Théologie XII (1981), 352;Google ScholarLee, Jung Young, op. cit. p. 41;Google ScholarKrause, Burghard, Leiden Cones – Leiden des Menschen: Eine Untersuchung zur Kirchlichen Dogmatik Karl Bartfis (Stuttgart, 1980), pp. 33–6;Google ScholarMoltmann, Jürgen, The Crucified God: the Cross of Christ as the Foundation and Criticism of Christian Theology (London, 3 1977), pp. 229–30;Google ScholarSchoonenberg, P., ‘Liden van God?’, Ons Geestelijk Leven LVI (1979), 37.Google Scholar

25 Creel, , loc. cit.Google Scholar

26 The expression is Creel's, who states: ‘To say that God is impassible with respect to his feelings would be to say that God's feelings, or the quality of his inner life, cannot be affected by an outside force’ loc. cit. (my italics).Google Scholar

27 McWilliams, , op. cit. pp. 5, 18, 22 (my italics).Google Scholar

28 Jerome makes his distinction between ‘passio’ and ‘propassio’ when commenting on Matthew 26:37 (‘ he … began to be sorrowful’) and concludes that only ‘propassiones’ may be ascribed to Jesus. See Hieronymus, , In Matheum Lib. Iv, Cap. xxvi, Vers. 37;Google Scholar cf. Lib. I, Cap. v, Vers. 28. As Pohlenz, Max, Die Stoa: Geschichte einer geistigen Bewegung II (Göttingen, 1949), p. 154Google Scholar has shown, Jerome was influenced by Origen, who in turn was influenced by Stoicist doctrines.

29 McWilliams does not seem to be acquainted with Jerome's distinction.

30 I want to thank Dr Christoph Schwöbel, who pointed this out to me in private conversation. On the proexistence of Christ, see Schürmann, Heinz, Jesu ureigener Tod: Exegetische Besinnungen und Ausblick (Freiburg, 1975), pp. 137–55;Google ScholarBreuning, Wilhelm, ‘Aktive Proexistenz – Die Vermittlung Jesu durch Jesus selbst’, Trierer Theologische Zeitschrift LXXXIII (1974), 193–213;Google ScholarHoffmann, Norbert, Kreuz und Trinität: Zur Theologie der Sahne (Einsiedeln, 1982).Google Scholar

31 Modalism safeguarded the ‘monarchia’ (unicity) of God by teaching that God simpliciter was incarnated in the Son; thus the Son was a mode of appearance (modus) of God simpliciter Modalism flourished during the second half of the second and the first half of the third century.

32 For this accusation, see, for instance, Tertullian, , Adversus Praxean 1, 2 and 10.Google Scholar The nickname ‘patripassianist’ probably came into use under influence of this treatise. It is important to note that Tertullian attaches another meaning to ‘Pater’ than did the modalists. Tertullian already means by ‘Pater’ the first Person of the Trinity, whereas the modalists still use ‘Pater’ in the more original meaning of ‘God simpliciter’. Cf. Kelly, John N. D., Early Christian Doctrines (London, 4 1968), pp. 83, 85, 100, 112, 119–23.Google Scholar

33 On this question, see Harnack, Adolf, ‘Monarchianismus’, in: Hauck, Albert (Ed.), Realencyklopadie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche XIII (Leipzig, 1903), p. 329.Google Scholar

34 Cf. Mozley, , op. cit. p. 35.Google Scholar

35 Tertullian, , Adversus Praxean 27;Google ScholarI use the translation by Holmes, Peter, published in: Roberts, Alexander & Donaldson, James (eds.), Ante-Nicene Christian Library XV (Edinburgh, 1870), pp. 333–406.Google Scholar

36 Op. Cit. 29.Google Scholar

37 Cf. Harnack, op. cit. pp. 329–30Google Scholar and Mozley, , op. cit. pp. 34–6.Google Scholar Frohnhofen points out that Tertullian was the first theologian who consistently taught that God could not be compassionate, since His impassibility excludes the possibility of compassion. It is therefore clear that the compassion Praxeas ascribed to God, in those days was not generally considered to be incompatible with His impassibility. Cf. Frohnhofen, , op. cit., pp. 224–5;Google Scholar cf. p. 187.

38 Cf. Tertullian, , Adversus Praxean 10, 13.Google Scholar

39 It might be objected against this, that Praxeas teaches a moderate modalism, and that other modalists, like Noétus of Smyrna or Epigonus, have taken a passibilist stance. However, this is far from sure. A well-known historian of doctrine like Friedrich Loofs thinks that it is very well possible that all modalists distinguished between Father and Son in a way similar to that of Praxeas. See his Leitfaden zum Studium der Dogmengeschichte, herausgegeben von Kurt Aland (Tübingen, 7 1968), pp. 144–6.Google Scholar But even if some modalists in fact were passibilists, this does not alter the conclusion that it is not this passibilism, but the refusal to endorse the trinitarian distinction between Father and Son that is the distinguishing characteristic of patripassianism.

40 Cf. Liébaert, Jacques, Christologie: Von der Apostolischen zeit bis zum Konzil von Chalcedon (451), Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte III Ia (Freiburg, 1965), p. 36:Google Scholar ‘Das Hauptproblem dieser Lehre war vor allem das trinitarische: die Modalisten glaubten die Einheit in Gott nur retten zu können, indem sie sich weigerten, den Vater und den Sohn voneinander wirklich zu unterscheiden.’

41 Harnack, , op. cit. 324.Google Scholar

42 MacGregor, Geddes, He Who Lets Us Be: a Theology of Love (New York, 1975), pp. 4, 51.Google Scholar

43 It is difficult to tell whether he is, because MacGregor fails sufficiently to clarify his christology. Cf. the critique of McWilliams, , op. cit. p. 93.Google Scholar

44 Contrary to what MacGregor, , op. cit. pp. 4, 51 seems to think.Google Scholar Cf. Lee, , op. cit. p. 24:Google Scholar ‘the patripassian heresy, which was the most pronounced name in the early Church for the passibility of God’.

45 MacGregor, , op. cit. pp. 19, 77 et passim.Google Scholar

46 McWilliams, , op. cit. p. 21.Google Scholar Cf. Cupitt, Don, Taking Leave of God (London, 1980), pp. 111–13Google Scholar, who is even more careless in his usage. Kazoh Kitamori complains in the preface to the fifth edition of his Kami no Itami no Shingaku that some critics try to identify his theology with patripassianism: ‘My theology, however, cannot be identified with patripassianism unless the critics can prove that I made reference to God the Father as the One who suffered on the cross.’ (This translation is taken from the English edition, Theology of the Pain of God (Richmond, 1965, p. 15.)Google ScholarMoltmann, Jürgen also explicitly rejects patripassianism, for instance in his The Crucified God, p. 243.Google Scholar The same goes for Lee, Jung Young, op. cit. p. 74.Google Scholar By rejecting patripassianism Jung Young Lee rejects ‘the unity of Godhead without distinction’, not the passibility of God.

47 Moltmann, Jürgen, ‘Gesichtspunkte der Kreuzestheologie Heute’, Evangelische Theologie XXXIII 1973), 359.Google Scholar

48 Moltmann, , The Crucified God, p. 243.Google Scholar

49 It has met with the approval of, for instance, Bavel, Tarcisius J. van, ‘Le Dieu Souffrant’, Stauros Bulletin (1975), pp. 17–18Google Scholar, Krause, Burghard, op. cit. pp. 177–8Google Scholar and Schoonenberg, P., op. cit. p. 40.Google Scholar

50 Chéné, Jean, ‘Unus de Trinitate Passus Est’, Recherches de Science Religieuse LIII (1965), 552 n. 24;Google Scholar cf. Elert, , Die Ausgang der allkirchlichen Christologie, e.g. pp. 106, 123.Google Scholar

51 On the following, see Amann, É., ‘Théopaschite (controverse)’, in Vacant, A., Mangenot, E. and Amann, É. (eds.), Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique 15–1 (Paris, 1946), cc. 505–512;Google ScholarChéné, Jean, op. cit. pp. 545–588;Google ScholarElert, , op. cit. pp. 71–132, 309–12;Google Scholar Id. ‘Die theopaschitische Formel’; Muus Feitsma, Het Theopaschitisme: Een Dogma-Historische Studie over de Ontwikkeling van het Theopaschitisch Denken (Kampen, 1956), pp. 28–91;Google ScholarGalot, , op. cit. pp. 11–23.Google Scholar

52 The theopaschite Trisagion runs as follows: ‘Holy God, Holy Strong One, Holy Immortal One, Who was crucified for us, have mercy upon us.’

53 Denzinger, Henricus/Schönmetzer, Adolfus, Enchiridion Symbolorum Definitionum et Declarationum de Rebus Fidei et Morum (Freiburg, 36 1976), 432 (222).Google Scholar

54 Galot, , op. cit. pp. 19, 23.Google Scholar

55 Cf. Elert, , Die Ausgang der altkirchlichen Christologie, p. 89:Google Scholar ‘Was Maria gebar, ist auch am Kreuz gestorben.’

56 Stott, John R. W., The Cross of Christ (Leicester, 1986, 3 1987), pp. 155–6.Google Scholar On the negative ‘image’ of theopaschitism, which, although perfectly orthodox, is still considered a heresy, see Elert, , Die Ausgang der altkirchlichen Christologie, pp. 123–7.Google Scholar Other contemporary examples of this phenomenon are, e.g. Goetz, , op. Cit. p. 385;Google ScholarMcWilliams, , op. cit. pp. 13, 43, 92;Google Scholar Id. ‘Divine Suffering in Contemporary Theology’, Scottish journal of Theology XXXIII (1980), 35, 38;Google ScholarMoltmann, , op. cit. pp. 228, 243;Google ScholarSurin, Kenneth, Theology and the Problem of Evil (Oxford, 1986), p. 126;Google ScholarWiersinga, Herman, Verzoening met het Linden? (Baarn, 1975), pp. 52–3.Google Scholar Cf. Frohnhofen, , op. cit. p. 142.Google Scholar

57 Stott, , op. cit. p. 331;Google Scholar cf. pp. 329–38.

58 Egmond, Van, op. cit. p. 267.Google Scholar

59 Egmond, Van, op. cit. p. 16 n.Google Scholar 10 refers to Elert, , Die Ausgang der altkirchlichen Christologie, pp. 89, 123Google Scholar to justify his anachronistic use of ‘theopaschitism’. He overlooks, however, that Elert uses the term only to denote what since the days of Nestorius became known as ‘theopaschitism’, and not to denote ‘patripassianism’ and `passibilism’. Elert uses ‘theopaschitism’ as a christological term, whereas Van Egmond uses it theologically. Further on in his study (p. 18 n. 17) Van Egmond, following Feitsma, , op. cit. pp. 21f.Google Scholar, distinguishes between both uses of this term, speaking of ‘absolute theopaschitism’ (= theological theopaschitism) and ‘relative theopaschitism’ (= christological theopaschitism). Though this distinction is clear in itself and calls attention to the fact that passibilism may be considered as a logical consequence of theopaschitism, it seems to me preferable to use ‘theopaschitism’ only in a relative sense and to employ ‘passibilism’ for the absolute sense. There is no reason to stretch the concept of ‘theopaschitism’ to a synonym of ‘passibilism’: this only leads to confusing usage as in the above quotation of Van Egmond.

60 For more examples of the second misunderstanding of ‘theopaschitism’, see, e.g. Egmond, A. van, ‘Theopaschitische Tendenzen in de Na-Oorlogse Protestantse Theologie’, Gereformeerd Theologisch Tijdschrift LXXIX (1979), 161–77;Google ScholarGoetz, , op. cit.Google ScholarKönig, Adrio, ‘The Idea of the “Crucified God”: Some Systemtic Questions’, journal of Theology for Southern Africa XXXIX (1982), 55–61;Google ScholarKrause, , op. cit. pp. 168–86Google Scholar [Krause, , pp. 172–4, referring to B. Klappert, Die Auferweckung des Gekreuzigten: Der Ansatz der Christologie Karl Barths im Zusammenhang der Christologie der Gegenwart (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 2 1971), p. 183, even distinguishes between ‘hyiopaschitism’ and ‘theopaschitism’].Google Scholar

61 He tries to show that the concept of a suffering God is not a ‘contradiction in terminis’ (Egmond, Van, De Lijdende God, pp. 233–66).Google Scholar