Marcion (and Thomas Jefferson) was particularly blatant about this – but doesn’t a preconception of the nature of God play a role in how many, perhaps all, read the Bible? It plays into discussions of atonement as well.
The discussion of impassibility in the previous post touched on this as well. If I now understand the term, I see why denial of impassibility is an error – but the discussion reflected on the tendency to pick and choose among parts of the Bible.

RJS,
I agree. One’s view of God shapes how one reads the Bible and what one sees. Marcion, however, disavowed dimensions of God in the Bible, and there are not a few Marcionites alive and well in our day. The major thrust of Marcion was the anti-Semitism that drove him to see the God of the OT as vindictive, etc., and that the God of the genuine Paulines was a God of grace, and he cut out what didn’t go along with his perception of God as gracious.

RJS,
Could you elaborate on why you now see impassibility as an error? Also, how does it relate to Marcionism?

Sorry, that should be why you now see DENIAL of impassibility as an error.

Percival,
Here is one definition I found:
The doctrine of divine impassibility holds, roughly, that God is without passion, or emotion.
and this is the definition that we seem to be rebelling against, it just isn’t true – but it also doesn’t seem to agree with Scot’s comments on the last post. I think that, while the doctrine is taken to this extreme by too many (even Calvin perhaps) this isn’t the real import. There are some posts on the RBS Tabletalk Blog part one, part two and part three that provide a little more nuanced look at the issues. I think that it is wrong to suppose that the nature of God – the plan of God – changes in response to external stimuli. In this sense God is impassible. But this doesn’t imply unemotional or unapproachable, petitionary prayer, judgment and mercy are part of the mix. We are in relationship with God, not with a sovereign rock.

RJS,
Thanks for the links to the Reformed Baptist Seminary site. I’m sure I never would have found that on my own! It was interesting reading. I’m still at a loss as to why this doctrine of impassibility is needed or helpful. As I understand it, not even Open Theists (the opposition in the view of the RBS material) would claim that God’s nature, character or essence ever changes. The key quote in the RSB material might be the following:
“He?s planned every event that has or ever will come to pass within the matrix of human history. He actively controls every event and circumstance so that nothing can take him unawares or by surprise.”
I guess, if you think that is a crucial idea to maintain, I can see why you hold to impassibility.
However, I still don’t understand how it relates to Marcion.

Percival,
It only relates to Marcion in that I think that some people (perhaps even Calvin) have a tendency to discard or relativize the portions of scripture that disagree with an external expectation of the nature of God. Marcion took this to an extreme and disregarded the OT and most of the writings of the apostolic church in total.

I’m pretty young, but I think I have been frustrated by attempts at compatibility on this issue. I want to see a continuity between the two testaments rather than an “I have no idea” approach. The temptation is to voice a Marcionite approach or one hell-bent on judgment rather than something that can make sense of both testaments.
I wonder if Israels nationalism has something to do with God’s approach in the OT. I think that these issues might play into God’s actions in the OT:
1. The purity of Israel as a unique people.
2. Israel’s choice to move away from a system of judges to a system of kings.
3. The Deuteronomistic Editor’s motives; for example, the necessity of portraying David as favorable and Saul as unfavorable, therefor God’s actions are justified for the sake of theological continuity rather than justified for moral reasons. I realize this one is cryptic and could be fleshed out more.
Can we see the God of the OT in a way that has continuity all the way from Adam to Jesus and beyond without sacrificing our understanding of God’s love as portrayed in the NT?

Joey @ 8, “Can we see the God of the OT in a way that has continuity all the way from Adam to Jesus and beyond without sacrificing our understanding of God’s love as portrayed in the NT?”
I think we can. For one thing, in contrast to the usual binary we set up, the OT is dripping with grace (manna, the choosing of Abraham, etc) and the NT has its fair share of harsh warnings and judgments that don’t satisfy our moral sensibilities (Ananias and Sapphira).
At the same time, “I don’t understand” is an entirely appropriate response to the Bible, just as it is to life. We can know enough about God to trust him, but if we think we fully understand, we are wrong. I think we can begin to look at troubling OT passages (specifically those dealing with genocide) through some of the understandings you mention, but ultimately, we can’t tame this text, or the God to which it attests. We can only wrestle with them both.

Travis @ 9
“At the same time, “I don’t understand” is an entirely appropriate response to the Bible, just as it is to life. We can know enough about God to trust him, but if we think we fully understand, we are wrong. I think we can begin to look at troubling OT passages (specifically those dealing with genocide) through some of the understandings you mention, but ultimately, we can’t tame this text, or the God to which it attests. We can only wrestle with them both.”
On some level I agree. Mystery is part of faith and our minuscule little minds and hearts can only fathom God out of grace. But on another hand lacking continuity brings a world of problems including anti-semitism, legalism, unfortunate interpretations of texts like Revelation, and a host of other issues that actually impact faith and life in significant ways. I’m not OK with “I don’t know” on this issue because I think we can know, at least in part, and that Christ’s work in the world is affected by our knowledge. I feel like I might not be making sense. But I thank you for pointing us to the mystery of God in this conversation.

Joey and Travis, you’re onto part of the answer, but I think another piece of it comes in the unfortunate (and I also maintain, false) duality between the “God of the OT” and the “God of the NT.” Cutting out the OT doesn’t only ignore the Pentateuch and Samuel, it also cuts out the prophets, who are loaded with notions of grace, mercy, and even inclusiveness (check out Isaiah 56:3-7 for a stunner that might’ve curled Moses’ hair).
Even Job, widely regarded as the oldest Biblical text we have, points out some very interesting things about how God wants his people to treat strangers and foreigners.
Is there tension between aspects of God as revealed in OT and NT? Sure. And that is where your comments on the need to accept mystery (I would add, “paradox”) are crucial. But we can also accept the notion that Jesus is the fullest, most complete, and final revelation of God, and so in many ways clarified misunderstood or incomplete notions of God from the ancients. This does not necessitate throwing out all the old, and Marcion was wrong to do so. . .if for no other reason than because the NT authorities–all of them, Jesus included–clearly appealed to the OT for teaching.

“He?s planned every event that has or ever will come to pass within the matrix of human history. He actively controls every event and circumstance so that nothing can take him unawares or by surprise.”
I understand the desire to hold God’s sovereignty intact. However, what is described in this quote cannot be. If it is so, humans have no freedom, and therefore are unable to intentionally act toward God or one another with love- and that IS the Jesus Creed, and the point of existence… I can go with “God *knows* every event, so nothing can take him by surprise.” But the other makes God the author of evil. Letting go of the puppet-master mentality actually makes God *bigger* – able to bring his will to pass in love without colonizing people – a God much more worthy of worship, in my view.
It is a fearsome thing indeed to struggle with the ramifications of God creating us in his image in the sense of being free Persons (distinct acting agents). It was for freedom that Christ set us free… now, what do we do with that freedom?
So much in all of this depends on our view of God, and I have a bit of sympathy for Marcion. The “Origins” thread today with the the “original sin” issue are related. However we read the OT, it has to be somehow through Jesus, because he is the exact eikon of the Father, the fullness of what God is really like.
Dana

Thanks for your comment, Dana…I totally agree!
Thinking back to yesterday’s #7 post (which I just read and commented on), God provides us, in the OT, opportunities to look at relationship from many different sides. If we’re not remembering God as covenant maker and faithful covenant keeper, we will not see that uniting thread that is woven from beginning to end.
To say that God cannot be surprised and must have everything figured out and known in advance shows exactly how we just cannot understand the mystery and paradox that IS God.
I like to split hairs by saying that God has everything under control (as in Rom 8:28, where God is actively working in and through each circumstance to show his faithful hesed for us), while not being in control — which denies freedom of actions and will in humans.

…I would also say that the restraint of God, which is a key component to God’s nature, is something that is not recognized often enough for my liking!
If God chooses to limit parts of their reality in order to enter into relationship with us, that is within their rights! God is, after all, God! We cannot put God is a box, neat and contained!
Hmmm … I’ll probably be taking a “heretic” hit for that one, but that’s okay with me…

Joey @ 10 & Dan @ 11,
I mean that “I don’t know” (or better, “I don’t know right now”) is an acceptable response to certain specific problematic texts, not that we shouldn’t believe strongly in the unity of the whole Scripture, or that we just throw up our hands in bewilderment. I say unity because part of this is our inability to accept that the Bible might sometimes endorse contrasting viewpoints. But truth, like life, is sometimes ambiguous, contradictory, and paradoxical, and we need to be able to live in the creative tensions between, say, mercy and justice.
I also agree that Jesus is our primary way of understanding God, but we also (like the ancients) need to learn to see Jesus in both Testaments. Jesus isn’t just any powerful guy come to save us, he’s specifically the expected Jewish Messiah, and the God whose Son he is began the long-gestating work of redemption in the narrative of the Jewish people as recorded in what we call the Old Testament (btw, I’m in favor of dropping that name, due to all the problems we’ve been discussing). There are parts of that narrative that are confusing to us, but we cannot discard it like Marcion, or we are cutting off the branch we’re sitting on.

As a universalist (did I miss discussion of this heresy, universal salvation or isn’t it one?), I feel somewhat attracted toward the Marcion view. I can not believe in a God who would damn any of his children to eternal torment or who appoves of atrocities. However, most of the Old testament describes a loving God, and there is so much else of beauty, so perhaps “Jeffersoning” the Old Testament instead of rejecting it is the better alternative. I don’t think you can just explain away some of the passages. We have only one Rabbi in Saprtanburg, SC. He gave the sermon at the local Inman Methodist Church, where I live, a couple of weeks ago and will be giving the sermon at our UU church on April 19. I plan to ask him some questions about Jewish heresies (Christianity is one of them!) and how Judaism deals with the atrocities in the OT, when we have our discussion with him following the service. My initial impression is that that Talmudic commentary is far more wide-ranging and accepting of many diverse views compared to Christianity’s more doctrinaire approach, but that occured post-Maimonides. I wonder if there are any actual historical examples of a link between a Marcionite view and anti-semitism? I suppose in some sense it’s an affront to Jews and Christians alike to excise passages, but how could some of them ever be compatible with a loving God? BTW, we’re studying “Lost Christianities” at church, a chapter a week.
Doug

What’s this mean: “She finds Marcionistic-like thinking in the Jesus Seminar”?
I just think God mellowed out after he had a kid.