Without passions... Really? Yes, for in this expression the Divines again affirmed the classical doctrine of impassibility. Let's be clear as to what is being maintained here. The Divines are not saying that God knows nothing of emotion or feeling, whether joy and delight, or pain and suffering. Rather, they are saying that no one (or thing) may impose suffering, pain, or any sort of distress on God in such a manner that God "experiences" such things unwillingly. 

Few doctrinal assertions appear more detached from reality than impassibility. Introduced into theology in the second century (Augustine, Calvin, Charnock, Owen, Shedd, Hodge - none offer serious misgivings), it suggests to the modern ear a God who at best is impassive, unconcerned and impersonal. However, what is being safeguarded is God's independence and sovereignty - his "absoluteness" (the main point of WCF 2:1). His experiences are not like ours. His are foreknown, willed and chosen and not involuntary reactions. Impassibility is affirmed both externally to God (God is not a victim) or internally to God (God does not suffer from anxiety, or depression; he is not emotionally stunted or remote or Stoically disengaged). 

Detractors (Karl Barth and Jürgen Moltman come to mind) notwithstanding, the Divines maintained divine impassibility as essential. Nevertheless, we should think of it in light of God's Trinitarian "dance" or perichoresis. As David Bentley hart puts it,