RT @McNeil87A: @troutsky_ Gavrilyuk is interesting on the history of impassibility; views it as emerging from discussions of how to (analog…
@troutsky_ Gavrilyuk is interesting on the history of impassibility; views it as emerging from discussions of how to (analogically) ascribe appropriate emotions to God; an 'apophatic qualifier' of sorts: https://t.co/SHp9vJENMp
@helicopterdrops @TylerDMcNabb The way this is understood matters a great deal. Patristic thinkers for example didn't deny that God has emotions but they appreciated that he wasn't 'a big person' which is why they used the idea of impassiblity as an apo…
@waldenpod A good tangent here is to look at the way that arguments for God' emotions developed; the point wasn't to eliminate them from the divine life but rather to have one's that we're 'fitting' (again analogically understood). Excellent discussion …