A disclaimer - "We can begin to make sense of the doctrine of impassibility only after we concede the utter impossibility of comprehending the mind of God."
Executive Summary of this post:
The doctrine of impassibility is the assertion that God is "impassible" by nature--that is, that he cannot experience suffering. Classic theism teaches that God is impassible—not subject to suffering, pain, or the ebb and flow of involuntary passions.
To say he does suffer takes away from the guarantee that He has the power to save, and makes him vulnerable. It would be the sick leading the sick. It brings God to our level. It makes the Creator on par and dependent with his creation. An impassible God still loves and shows us compassion but at the same time is strong and able to save us from our suffering. Wouldnt you rather have a stronger God, who at the same time is completely capable of showing compassion on his own free will and not contingent to us? If outside influences can force an involuntary change in God's disposition, then what real assurance do we have that His love for us will remain constant?
"It is of the Lord's mercies that we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not" (Lamentations 3:22).
Malachi 3:6: "For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed."
Here's how JI Packer describes the doctrine of impassibility.
"This means, not that God is impassive and unfeeling (a frequent misunderstanding), but that no created beings can inflict pain, suffering and distress on him at their own will. In so far as God enters into suffering and grief (which Scripture's many anthropopathisms, plus the fact of the cross, show that he does), it is by his own deliberate decision; he is never his creatures' hapless victim. The Christian mainstream has construed impassibility as meaning not that God is a stranger to joy and delight, but rather that his joy is permanent, clouded by no involuntary pain.[18]"
Two points were made in the comments in relation to my previous post.
Painkey - God shows emotion and has feelings. I agree. He is by definition love. The Creator does display emotions and feelings concerning his creation but I do not believe that He himself suffers or bases his emotions solely due to our actions or the events that occur within the time and space of our world. God is outside of time and space. I do believe that he can empathize and love us just the same. To say that God is effected by us, of which we are full of sin, is to say that God is contingent upon our well being.
This is not the case. God cares and loves because He is love, not because he is necessitated to love us due to our own self afflicted sin. And this in no way takes away from the fact that He loves us, in fact it assures us that He does and that He is strong and sovereign above that which inflicts us, suffering due to sin.
Spamprice- My comment on the following quote, "but that God suffers due to his relationship with the sinner." This last sentence I think I answered above. But let me add that the minute we say that God suffers anything due to us begins to chip away at his absolute sovereignty, holiness and righteousness.
I think the issue is the definition of suffering. And I found the following article available online as it states the issue much clearer than I ever could hope to do.
The Modern Reworking of "Suffering"
The modern question is rather different from the one faced by Cyril. First of all, theologians today want to affirm that God can suffer (in some sense at least) in his divine nature, and to claim that the whole concept of "suffering" needs to be rethought. Many would agree that if the ancient notion of suffering is accepted (suffering back then specifically referred to the physical body), then of course, God must be impassible. Not only does he not have a body, but his sovereignty makes it inconceivable that he could ever be subjected to an external force which is more powerful than he is. The real difficulty with the traditional doctrine is therefore not that it is wrong in its own terms (it is not), but that our understanding of what suffering is has changed in such a way that the older assertion no longer makes sense. This solution has the advantage of exculpating the ancient fathers, while at the same time demonstrating why their teaching has to be recast today.
The main point of difference seems to be that suffering is regarded today as a psychological, emotional, and even spiritual phenomenon, as much as a physical one. The claim is made that such distinctions are artificial and untenable, and that if it is true that human beings can have a relationship with God which is both just and caring, then God must be capable of entering into our pain. The modern theologians are not talking here about brute physical force, but about compassion and "empathy," which the ancients supposedly ignored. That is not strictly true of course--ancient Christian writers categorized such notions under "love," rather than "suffering." Once that shift of perception is made, it is quite clear that the fathers of the church believed in God's compassion just as much as any modern theologian.
Perhaps the best way to try to understand the nature of this problem is to take a familiar modern analogy--that of doctor and patient. Someone lying in a hospital bed does not want to be solely treated by a machine, which functions regardless of the pain it might inflict. Rather, the patient wants to be treated by someone who understands what he or she is going through, and who will sensitively adjust his approach. For this, a human being is essential, and any good doctor knows that his or her bedside manner is at least as important as any medicine. But having said that, what patient wants the doctor to climb into the bed next to him or her and start making groaning noises, as if to indicate that the doctor, too, is experiencing the same pain? This is not the kind of "empathy" desired, because the fundamental reason the patient wants the doctor is not to receive sympathy from him or her; the patient can get that just as easily from any medically unskilled visitor. What the patient wants is to be cured. Understanding pain is all very well, but overcoming it is what all sufferers really want. God is impassible, not because he is uncaring (he is in fact far more compassionate than any human being ever could be), but because he is strong to save. Unlike human doctors, who are available only at certain times and who are occasionally "off sick" themselves, God is always ready and able to help. The impassibility of his nature is, therefore, a guarantee that he will always be there.
The modern reaction to impassibility may be understandable in its context, but it is essentially misguided. Accusations that the fathers of the church were influenced by their pagan philosophical background do not stand up to serious examination (quite the reverse, in fact). More important still, the doctrine is not a barrier to understanding God's compassion, but is in fact the assertion that his compassion is always fully available and functioning. Impassibility may not be something that we need to think about very often (when things are going well, we usually take them for granted), but it is vitally important nevertheless. As Christians we need to appreciate where divine impassibility fits into the overall picture of God's saving work.
Packer again clears things up with the following,
"[Impassibility is] not impassivity, unconcern, and impersonal detachment in face of the creation; not insensitivity and indifference to the distresses of a fallen world; not inability or unwillingness to empathize with human pain and grief; but simply that God's experiences do not come upon him as ours come upon us, for his are foreknown, willed and chosen by himself, and are not involuntary surprises forced on him from outside, apart from his own decision, in the way that ours regularly are."
Full articles on this topic may be found on the following sites.
http://www.geocities.com/the_theologian/content/doctrine/
impassible.html
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/impassib.htm
