Impassibility says God is never acted upon: never moved, never affected, never made to suffer or respond by anything outside. The pressure is that loving someone, hearing a prayer, or suffering on the Cross all involve being affected by another. Removing every trace of "being affected" keeps the words *love* and *mercy* while leaving disputed whether anything responsive remains for them to name.

> [!info]
> **Core concept.** Impassibility says God is never acted upon—never moved, never affected, never made to respond by anything outside. It protects God from depending on the world. But look at what the believer's own words need. To love someone, hear their prayer, or grieve with them is to be affected by them: attentive, responsive, changed in your own state by what happens to theirs. Strip out every trace of being-affected and you keep the words love and mercy while removing the responsiveness they name. What's left is the skeleton of love, not its substance—and being affected is just what it is for a persisting thing to bear the events that reach it.

*What the tradition holds.* Classical theology holds that God is impassible: God is not acted upon, does not suffer, does not undergo emotional disturbance, and does not receive anything from creatures (Aquinas, *ST* I.20.1; Augustine, *De civitate Dei* IX.5; Anselm, *Proslogion* VIII). The doctrine binds tightly to immutability ([§6.3.3](<6.3.3 Immutability.md>)), simplicity ([§6.2.1](<6.2.1 Simplicity.md>)), and aseity ([§6.3.1](<6.3.1 Necessity.md>)): a being that cannot be acted upon is also one that does not change, has no parts to be moved, and depends on nothing outside itself. The classical reading locates the affective language of Scripture (God's anger, grief, compassion, jealousy) in the creature's relation to God rather than in God's reception of the creature (Aquinas, *ST* I.20.1 ad 2; (Gavrilyuk, Paul L., 2004); (Weinandy, Thomas G., 2000)). The twentieth-century *passibilist* turn (Moltmann, Jürgen, 1974); (Fiddes, Paul S., 1988); (Bauckham, Richard, 1984) pressed in the other direction: a God who does not suffer with creation cannot love it, and the Cross is the central revelation of divine passibility: God's capacity to be affected by, and to suffer with, creation. The position the classical doctrine, fully stated, holds is that God's intrinsic state is invariant under creaturely action: nothing the creature does adds to, subtracts from, or modifies the divine being; God's love, knowledge, and providence are entirely a function of God's own being and not of what God receives.

*What cannot be answered.* Five questions reach what the doctrine of impassibility, in the form structural reasoning can take up, cannot answer. Beneath the five runs one structural fact: *reception* is a structural feature of substances persisting through time ([§2.6.4](<2.6.4 Persistence's Two Conditions.md>)), and the doctrine's strategy is to deny all reception of the divine being while preserving the relational language the believer's life depends on.

**Q1.** *How does a being love what cannot move it?* The classical reading of divine love is that God's love for the creature is the act by which God wills the creature's good, and that this act is identical with God's own being (Aquinas, *ST* I.20). Many accounts of interpersonal love include receptivity and affective response, while classical accounts define divine love primarily as willing the beloved's good. The dispute is substantive: whether perfect love requires intrinsic affective change, not a truth fixed by the concept alone. The classical reply removes the *affected by* component and identifies the love with the willing of the good; the passibilist reply (Moltmann, Jürgen, 1974); (Fiddes, Paul S., 1988) is that this is not love but its skeleton, a willing-of-good that proceeds without the responsiveness love names. The concern here is that the skeleton of love is the structural concept *willing* without the substantive content *affected by*; whether the skeleton suffices for what the believer means by *God loves us* is the disputed question, and the dispute has been the central battleground of twentieth-century theology.

> [!info]
> **Natural worry.** The classical reply is that divine love isn't being moved by us at all—it's God's act of willing our good, identical with God's own being. No reception required, so impassibility stands. Press one question: does willing-the-good, with every trace of responsiveness removed, still name what the believer means by love? A parent who wills a child's good but is never moved by the child's joy or pain has the structure of benevolence without its heart. The later 'qualified impassibility' that lets God be affected without diminishment quietly readmits exactly the variance the strong doctrine refused—and that variance is just persistence bearing what reaches it.

**Q2.** *Who hears a prayer, if nothing can reach the one it is prayed to?* The believer prays to God for the healing of a sick friend. The classical reply is that God eternally wills the friend's healing in response to the eternally-foreseen prayer; the prayer does not move God in time, but figures eternally in the divine plan that includes the healing (Aquinas, *ST* II-II.83). Response to prayer names a counterfactual and explanatory dependence between petition and outcome. In creaturely cases this often involves acts at t_1 and t_2; a classical account instead posits one timeless intention whose effects are temporally ordered. The reply that the figuring is eternal in the recipient relocates the directedness into the petitioner-creature side and leaves the recipient as the *terminus ad quem* (the end point *toward which*) of the figuring without being the *receiver* of the prayer. The believer's intuition that the prayer is *heard* (received by an attending recipient) is what the classical reply replaces with the prayer's *being-figured-in*. What the reply suppresses is not the intuition itself but the structural feature it tracks — reception by an attending recipient, which the eternal-figuring model must either supply in another register or explain away.

**Q3.** *How does an impassible God suffer on the Cross?* The crucifixion of Jesus is, on the Chalcedonian definition, the suffering of the second person of the Trinity in the human nature he has assumed. The classical reply is that the suffering is real in the human nature and that the divine nature does not suffer; the unity of person is preserved by predication-of-the-person rather than by attribution-to-the-nature (Aquinas, *ST* III.46; (Weinandy, Thomas G., 2000); (Gavrilyuk, Paul L., 2004)). The passibilist objection is that this preserves impassibility by locating the suffering in a nature distinct from the divine being, which converts the Cross from the revelation of God's love into the dramatic event of a human nature's pain. The concern here is that *the suffering of the person* requires the person to bear what the nature undergoes (to be the *whose* of the *what*) and the impassibilist reading locates the *bearing* without the *being-affected*. What the doctrine performs against here is not only Moltmann's -(Moltmann, Jürgen, 1974) reading of the Cross as the suffering of God but the central event of Christian revelation that reading interprets. Hartshorne's dipolar account offers a principled reply to Q3: the suffering on the Cross is borne by the concrete pole (the cumulative, responsive divine actuality that is genuinely affected by creaturely events, including the event of the crucifixion) while the abstract pole remains invariant. Moltmann's -(Moltmann, Jürgen, 1974) intuition that the Cross reveals a suffering God traces its process-theological ancestry to Hartshorne (*The Divine Relativity* -(Charles Hartshorne, 1948)), whose systematic account of divine receptivity is the direct predecessor of the twentieth-century passibilist revival. The pressure here is the one [§5.3.3](<5.3.3 Process Theology.md>) presses: if the single subject suffers, its abstract dimension stands in relation to a temporal event across the pole-relation, and [§5.3.3](<5.3.3 Process Theology.md>) shows that relation is a directed crossing obtaining only within T, S, and Φ. The concrete pole's reception of the Cross is sustained only by drawing the abstract pole into the conditions it was defined to lack.

**Q4.** *What does a being receive, if it has no potency to receive?* Reception requires the potency to receive. A being that is pure act (with no unrealized potential) has no potency to receive (Aquinas, *ST* I.3.1; (Feser, Edward, 2017)). The concern here is that the doctrine of impassibility is *what pure act entails at the relational level*: a being that cannot be moved cannot be received-from, because reception is being-moved by what is received. The reply that God receives in the order of intention (knowing, willing) without being moved in the order of being (Aquinas, *ST* I.20 ad 2) preserves impassibility by introducing a distinction between intentional and ontological reception. The concern here is that *intentional reception* is what *being affected by what is known and willed* names, and the doctrine's strategy is to keep this in a register that does not modify the being's intrinsic state — which is what the believer's intuition denies the doctrine should keep apart.

**Q5.** *How does God respond to creatures without being acted upon?* The twentieth-century passibilist tradition (Moltmann, Jürgen, 1974); (Fiddes, Paul S., 1988); (Bauckham, Richard, 1984) has argued that divine love requires divine suffering. The contemporary refinements (Weinandy, Thomas G., 2000); (Gavrilyuk, Paul L., 2004); (Mullins, R. T., 2016) distinguish *strong impassibility* (no affective variance) from *qualified impassibility* (affective responsiveness without ontological diminishment). The concern here is that *affective responsiveness* is the variance the strong doctrine refused, and the qualified-impassibility move admits the variance the strong doctrine was preserving against. The qualified move is honest about what the believer's intuition requires; the concern here is that what the qualified move admits is the structural feature Φ (substance persisting through events) carries: the persisting substance is the *bearer* of the events, and *being the bearer* is *being modified by* the events as they occur in the bearer. The qualified-impassibilist and full-passibilist positions developed inside personal theism (Mullins, R. T., 2016) are a live destination in their own right (a temporal, personal God genuinely affected by creatures, engaged at [§6.7.3](<6.7.3 Interaction.md>) and alongside [§6.3.3](<6.3.3 Immutability.md>)) not merely a way-station to the dipolar terminus; the concern this section presses is that the *internal* logic of admitting affective variance runs on toward that terminus. Dipolar theism is the principled stopping point the passibilist refinements slide toward: Hartshorne's abstract pole is not weakly impassible but strictly impassible, and the concrete pole is not qualifiedly passible but fully receptive, growing with the world's cumulative experience. The abstract/concrete bifurcation is designed to prevent the qualified-impassibility position from being a halfway house: it takes the impassibility/passibility split and assigns it cleanly to two poles of a single subject rather than blurring it across a single nature. The pressure here is the one [§5.3.3](<5.3.3 Process Theology.md>) presses: the two poles constitute one subject only through the directed crossing between them, which imports the very structural conditions the abstract pole was supposed to avoid.

*What is required.* Run to their end, the five pressures show what *impassible* finally rests on. Love without intrinsic affective change is the classical proposal; the disputed question is whether willing another's good suffices for perfect love or whether receptivity is essential. Petitionary prayer requires a recipient whose receiving is part of the prayer's structure; relocating the receiving into the eternal-figuring register removes the structural feature *being heard*. The Cross requires a suffering of the person; locating the suffering in a nature distinct from the divine being separates the bearing from the being-affected. Pure act has no potency to receive; the intentional-vs.-ontological distinction preserves impassibility by allowing reception in a register that does not modify the receiver, which requires a clarified distinction between intentional relation and intrinsic alteration. Qualified impassibility admits the variance the strong doctrine refused, which is the variance Φ carries: the persisting substance is the bearer of the events, and being the bearer need not entail intrinsic modification by every relational event. After the five pressures, impassibility remains a claim about the mode and limits of divine receptivity. Φ can describe the persistence of affected bearers, but impassibility is not thereby identical with Φ.

*What is inverted.* The inversion relocates creaturely reception and affective persistence to Φ, the substance/persistence condition. It does not convert the negative divine attribute of impassibility into Φ itself. *Not acted upon*, in the only sense that survives the dilemmas above, names not the absence of reception in a being lacking all potency but the structural fact that the *persisting carrier of events* is what *substance* names: the structural feature of any world in which there is anything *that* is *affected by* anything. The action-and-passion relational structure the believer's prayer life and the Cross rest on lives at the level of substances within Nature: directed transitions of substances within the necessary modal structure, including the substance the second person of the Trinity has assumed. Traced to what it presupposes, *impassible* names Φ: the structural condition of being-the-carrier-of-events, which is the condition of any reception at all. Prayer, creaturely love, and suffering occur through persisting bearers within Nature. Whether God participates in those events passibly, relates to them timelessly, or is revealed through an assumed human nature remains a theological dispute constrained—but not settled—by that structural fact.


---

← [6.3.3 Immutability](<6.3.3 Immutability.md>) | [6.4 Cognition](<6.4 Cognition.md>) →
