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

Bibliographic Data

ID20310470
AuthorsM Sarot (0000-0002-8002-2984, Royal BAM Group (Netherlands), corresponding author)
Year1990
Volume26
Issue3
Pages363-375
Publication date1990-09-01
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueReligious Studies (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0034-4125 • E-ISSN: 1469-901X
PublisherCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1017/s0034412500020527
OpenAlexW2000686556
LanguageEN
Citations received1
References cited4

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

Doctrine · Rest (music) · State (computer science) · Theology · TRACE (psycholinguistics) · Biblical Studies and Interpretation · Christian Theology and Mission · Philosophy · Theology and Philosophy of Evil

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub