Any plausible model of a personal God must present a compelling account of divine love for creation. Charles Hartshorne, Nicholas Wolterstorff, Clark Pinnock and other recent thinkers have claimed that the impassible model of God advocated by Thomism commits its adherents to a conception of an indifferent, uncaring deity. In contrast, these critics claim that a changing and passible portrayal of God better depicts a loving deity. This paper defends the Thomistic model of God from this charge and demonstrates the continuing attractiveness of the impassible model of God.