Moltmann's View of God's Passability vs Aquinas

Moltmann and Aquinas

Moltmann's Passable God has been criticized for its lack of emphasis on divine transcendence. It could also be said to undermine the traditional understanding of God's immutability and perfection. However, the weakness is not so much in Moltmann’s use of the term passability as it is in people’s understanding of the Trinity. God as Trinity must necessarily be perfect and impassable.[footnoteRef:1] But God as Man was passable and did suffer and feel and have all the experiences associated with human nature, as stated in the Gospel. The created human nature of God in Jesus, the Word Incarnate, did grow and experience pain, and die—this is all recorded, and therefore it can be said that in His human nature God was passable. But in His Godhead, in the Three-as-One Divine Nature, God is not passable, and this distinction has to be made, which is the problem for Moltmann. This is why critics can argue that Moltmann's view of the passability of God does not adequately account for the mystery of God's power and authority, which is often associated with the notion of divine transcendence. Still, one must not neglect to consider the suffering of Christ and the mystery of the Incarnation, which is central to human history (and yet so roundly ignored). Additionally, some have argued that Moltmann's focus on the suffering and vulnerability of God detracts from the notion of God as a powerful and sovereign being. But, again, this can hardly be a valid criticism, as a focus on Christ’s suffering can never be a detraction from God’s power and sovereignty as it glorifies God’s sublime mercy and inherent power and sovereignty by extension. Finally, some have questioned whether God's passability implies that God is subject to change, which could lead to inconsistency in God's character. It is here that one might best be able to apply criticism, for it is here that the term itself and how it is applied is under scrutiny. [1: Duncan, Ligon, and James Nathan Boldt. "Confessing the Impassible, Compassionate, Covenanting God: Defining & Defending the Doctrine of Impassibility and Its Relation to the Sovereign, Covenantal Decrees of God." (2021).]

Aquinas' doctrine of an impassable God emphasizes God's immutability and perfection, and argues that God cannot be subject to any form of change or suffering. This doctrine is based on the Aristotelian concept of God as the unmoved mover, and it emphasizes God's transcendence and infinite nature. Supporters of this doctrine argue that it upholds the traditional understanding of God as the supreme being and avoids the anthropocentric tendencies of passable God theories. This definition is appropriate when discussing the Trinity; however, it must not be used to argue that Christ was not God or did not suffer, as some heretics have done throughout the centuries.

Now the dangers of Moltmann’s theory are that by emphasizing passability as part of the essence of God—rather than emphasizing the mystery of Christ’s suffering as God and Man—Moltmann has opened the door to humanism and liberation theology, which veers the person away from God towards man-centered ideals.[footnoteRef:2] Liberation theology emphasizes social justice to the neglect of spiritual conformity to God’s will; it emphasizes worldly justice rather than the kingship of Christ. This is the danger lurking in Moltmann’s passability theory; the mystery of God’s suffering is not to be taken lightly or used to make sweeping assertions about God’s nature that divert from traditional understanding, as Aquinas puts it. [2: Cho, Anna. "The linguistic characteristics of the language of human rights and its use in reality as the kingdom of God in the light of Speech Act Theory." HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 75, no. 4 (2019), 3.]