Moltmann vs. Aquinas on Divine Passibility and Impassibility
This essay compares Jürgen Moltmann's doctrine of a passible God with Thomas Aquinas's classical doctrine of divine impassibility. It examines criticisms of Moltmann's view — including concerns about divine transcendence, immutability, and the risk of veering toward humanism and liberation theology — while acknowledging the theological importance of Christ's suffering in the Incarnation. The essay argues that the key distinction lies between God's divine nature, which is impassible, and Christ's human nature, which did suffer. It also proposes that an international ecumenical commission could help clarify these doctrines for contemporary Christian communities.
- Introduction: The Passibility Debate: Framing the passibility debate and Moltmann's thesis
- Criticisms of Moltmann's Passible God: Three key criticisms of Moltmann evaluated
- Aquinas and Divine Impassibility: Aquinas's Aristotelian doctrine of divine impassibility
- The Dangers of Moltmann's Passibility Theory: Links between passibility theory and liberation theology
- Toward Ecumenical Clarification: Proposal for an ecumenical commission on the doctrine
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper draws a precise theological distinction between Christ's divine and human natures to navigate the passibility debate, grounding its argument in orthodox Trinitarian doctrine rather than either extreme.
- It fairly presents the strongest criticisms of Moltmann while methodically rebutting some and conceding the validity of others, demonstrating balanced analytical reasoning.
- The conclusion pivots constructively, proposing an ecumenical commission as a practical institutional response to the theological controversy.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates theological counterargument — the writer introduces a criticism, evaluates its merit, and either rebuts or qualifies it using doctrinal reasoning. For example, the argument that focusing on God's suffering detracts from divine sovereignty is dismissed on the grounds that Christ's passion actually glorifies God's mercy and power. This technique shows examiners that the writer can engage critically rather than merely summarize positions.
Structure breakdown
The essay opens by introducing Moltmann's passibility thesis and its critics, then addresses each criticism in turn. It pivots to Aquinas's contrasting impassibility doctrine before identifying the deeper risk in Moltmann's framework — its proximity to liberation theology and humanism. The paper closes with a forward-looking proposal for ecumenical dialogue. This moves from critique to context to consequence to solution, giving the argument a clear directional arc.
Introduction: The Passibility Debate
Jürgen Moltmann's passible 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 lies not so much in Moltmann's use of the term passibility as it does in people's understanding of the Trinity. God as Trinity must necessarily be perfect and impassable.1 But God as Man was passable and did suffer, feel, and experience all that is associated with human nature, as stated in the Gospel. The created human nature of God in Jesus — the Word Incarnate — did grow, 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 must be made. Herein lies the core problem for Moltmann.
Criticisms of Moltmann's Passible God
Critics argue that Moltmann's view of the passibility 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 the suffering of Christ and the mystery of the Incarnation, which is central to human history, however roundly it is ignored in modern discourse. 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. Yet this can hardly be a valid criticism, since a focus on Christ's suffering can never detract from God's power and sovereignty — it glorifies God's sublime mercy and inherent sovereignty by extension.
Finally, some have questioned whether God's passibility implies that God is subject to change, which could lead to inconsistency in God's character. It is here that the most legitimate criticism may be applied, for it is here that the term itself and its application come under the most serious scrutiny.
Bibliography
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).
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).
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.