# Is God Always Happy or Joyful?



## Ed Walsh (Nov 24, 2018)

Greetings,

This morning I asked two family members the following questions. I was surprised by their answers. May I ask you two a straightforward question? Yes, both said, but the elder of two grimaced a bit assuming that the question was apt to be a loaded one. Here they are:

Q.1 – Do you think God, essentially considered, is always happy?

Both people answered with a quick, unreflected, NO!
I thanked them and left the room for about five minutes.

How would you answer this first question?

Then I returned to ask this follow-up question:

Q.2 – Is there a single molecule anywhere in the universe that is not maintained continuously in existence and doing precisely as God has predetermined?

Again, "no" was the answer.

But, after this question, the younger of the two changed their answer to question one from "no," to, "I don't know."

How would you answer the second question?

No discussion followed at this time but I feel a theme coming on to this Lord's Day's family time.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 24, 2018)

Ch 2 of the WCF

I. There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute, working all things according to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will, for his own glory, most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek him; and withal most just and terrible in his judgments; hating all sin; and who will by no means clear the guilty.

Q2 Chapter 5


I. God, the great Creator of all things, doth uphold, direct dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by his most wise and holy providence, according to his infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of his own will, to the praise of the glory of his wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.

II. Although in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first cause, all things come to pass immutably and infallibly, yet, by the same providence, he ordereth them to fall out according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.

III. God, in his ordinary providence, maketh use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at his pleasure.

IV. The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God, so far manifest themselves in his providence, that it extendeth itself even to the first Fall, and all other sins of angels and men, and that not by a bare permission, but such as hath joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to his own holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from God; who being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 2


----------



## earl40 (Nov 24, 2018)

Ed Walsh said:


> Q.1 – Do you think God, essentially considered, is always happy?



Unequivocally yes. Though scripture uses anthropomorphism to convey how God "feels" one ought not to think He ever experiences unhappiness.



Ed Walsh said:


> Q.2 – Is there a single molecule anywhere in the universe that is not maintained continuously in existence and doing precisely as God has predetermined?



All those actions, God ordains, does not affect Him in any way shape or form as to cause any reaction (happiness or unhappiness) in Himself.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Ed Walsh (Nov 24, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> Ch 2 of the WCF
> 
> Q2 Chapter 5



Precisely. Great answer.

I have been, of late, nearly overwhelmed at the thought of our most pure, clean, perfect, simple, and everything else and more than stated in your quotes. God the Holy Trinity, in a union and communion of Persons has been, is now, and always will be, without the possibility of change, entirely happy, filled joy unspeakable, and perfect peace, beyond any definitions we can as yet imagine.

Although I didn't follow-up this morning's questions with an attempt to challenge the "no," and the "I don't know," that caught me off guard, I plan to try tomorrow. Please pray for me that I am enabled, with joy, and wisdom of the Word, to communicate this idea cleared up as much as the Lord is pleased to do or his own glory.

Praise His wonderful name.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## JimmyH (Nov 24, 2018)

The questions brought Reverend Winzer to mind. I sorely miss his input here on the PB. Doing a percursory search for 'emotion' one of the first posts relative to the topic I came up with was this one ;

https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/two-wills-of-god.47586/page-2#post-612311

Reverend Winzer is responding to this statement by a member,
"In such cases, the emotion felt by God in connection with the rejected alternative is momentary and subsumed in his delight in the desire fulfilled."



> First, even momentary sorrow in God is an outright repudiation of the teaching that God is blessed for ever. Secondly, to speak of God having momentary states is to maintain divine changeability. Such is the mire into which one will be cast when he rejects the well advised theology of the reformed tradition.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Nov 24, 2018)

Ed Walsh said:


> Q.2 – Is there a single molecule anywhere in the universe that is not maintained continuously in existence and doing precisely as God has predetermined?


What does Our Lord teach us?

29 Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.
30 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.
31 Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows.
- Matthew 10:29-31

26 Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?
- Matthew 6:26

How many stars are observable in the universe?
About 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (Seventy sextillion) Src
[After a billion comes a trillion (one thousand times one billion). A thousand times a trillion is a quadrillion. Similarly, then for each 1000x multiple comes quintrillion, *sextillion*, septillion, octillion, nonillion, and decillion. FYI, a _google_ is a 1 followed by 100 zeros.]

He [God] telleth the number of the stars; he [God] calleth them all by _their_ names.
- Psalm 147:4

If you could count 10 numbers every second it would take 221,816,614,740,000 years (221+ trillion years) to count the number of estimated stars above in the universe. A top of the line computer made in 2013 counting to sextillion (21 zeros) would take nearly 7709 years iterate up to one sextillion (not seventy)!



Spoiler: Computer Code for Counting For Your Own Testing



static void Main(string[] args)
{
var startTimestamp = DateTime.Now;
for (int i = 0; i <= 1000000; i++);
var elapsedTime = DateTime.Now - startTimestamp;

Console.WriteLine(string.Format("{0} for 1 billion (9 zeros),", GetReadableString(newTimeSpan(elapsedTime.Ticks * 1000))));
Console.WriteLine(string.Format("{0} for 1 trillion (12 zeros)", GetReadableString(newTimeSpan(elapsedTime.Ticks * 1000000))));
Console.WriteLine(string.Format("{0} for 1 quadrillion (15 zeros)", GetReadableString(newTimeSpan(elapsedTime.Ticks * 1000000000))));
Console.WriteLine(string.Format("{0} for 1 quintillion (18 zeros)", GetReadableString(newTimeSpan(elapsedTime.Ticks * 1000000000000))));
Console.WriteLine(string.Format("and {0} for it to count up to 1 sextillion (21 zeros).", GetReadableString(new TimeSpan(elapsedTime.Ticks * 1000000000000000))));

Console.ReadKey();
}

private static string GetReadableString(TimeSpan span)
{
string formatted = string.Format("{0}{1}{2}{3}{4}",
span.Duration().Days > 364 ? string.Format("{0:0} year{1}, ", span.Days / 365, span.Days == 365 ? string.Empty : "s") : string.Empty,
span.Duration().Days > 0 ? string.Format("{0:0} day{1}, ", span.Days % 365, span.Days % 365 == 1 ? String.Empty : "s") : string.Empty,
span.Duration().Hours > 0 ? string.Format("{0:0} hour{1}, ", span.Hours, span.Hours == 1 ? String.Empty : "s") : string.Empty,
span.Duration().Minutes > 0 ? string.Format("{0:0} minute{1}, ", span.Minutes, span.Minutes == 1 ? String.Empty : "s") : string.Empty,
span.Duration().Seconds > 0 ? string.Format("{0:0} second{1}", span.Seconds, span.Seconds == 1 ? String.Empty : "s") : string.Empty);

if (formatted.EndsWith(", ")) formatted = formatted.Substring(0, formatted.Length - 2);

if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(formatted)) formatted = "0 seconds";

return formatted;
}

Notes:
Above using C# Console Application in Visual Studio

In another programming language:
1. Get the current date&time / timestamp
2. Create a _for_ loop & iterate (count-up) to 1,000,000
3. Get a new timestamp and make the difference with the current one. This will tell you how long it took a computer to count up to 1 million.

From here forward it is a matter of multiplying the value you obtained and extrapolate how much it would take to count up to some value.



If there are even the smallest things things and/or events that are outside the providential control of God, then why should we believe _any_ promise God has made to us?

May it never be!

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ed Walsh (Nov 24, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> How many stars are observable in the universe?
> About 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (Seventy sextillion) Src
> [After a billion comes a trillion (one thousand times one billion). A thousand times a trillion is a quadrillion. Similarly, then for each 1000x multiple comes quintrillion, *sextillion*, septillion, octillion, nonillion, and decillion. FYI, a _google_ is a 1 followed by 100 zeros.]



These type of facts considered simultaneously with the thought that God is always present with insignificant me, giving his full attention to me at all times caused me to raise my shaking hands in praise with tears and love and fear and hope and even a sure knowledge that one day I will be so enlarged in all my capascities that I will also know as I am known. I can hardly type in the fear and awe of such a being. And I am sure there is error in my thoughts of him and that I can't for with all these thoughts understand a minuscule portion of his true self.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ed Walsh (Nov 24, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> How many stars are observable in the universe?
> About 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (Seventy sextillion)



Patrick,

You didn't go far enough. I'd be interested in the number of protons, electrons, and particularly how many neutrinos there are in the known universe.

Genesis 1:16
_"...he made the stars also."_​
Notice how casual the Bible's account is of all those stars it. It is as if they are noting at all. And they are insignificant when compared to the fallen creature called man. The stars are given five words in the creation story, while the rest of the Bible, containing 783,137-5 words, is about the interaction between God and man plus Satan and the elect Angels. With God himself being the primary center of all.

PS - I know that stars are mentioned elsewhere in the Bible.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Nov 24, 2018)

Ed Walsh said:


> Patrick,
> 
> You didn't go far enough. I'd be interested in the number of protons, electrons, and particularly how many neutrinos there are in the known universe.


The usual estimate is about 10^80 (ten raised to the power of 80) atoms in the universe. Given that most of the universe is composed of hydrogen atoms, it is reasonable to assume the same number of electrons (10^80) and protons (10^80). Hydrogen atoms compose about 74% of all known matter.

For neutrinos, one estimate is about 1.2 x 10^89.

For some more data about the universe, see:
https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/numbers.html

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## OPC'n (Nov 25, 2018)

Yes he is always joyful because he never changes. On the other hand he is always wrathful because he never changes. I don't believe God experiences emotion the same way we do. We can't be joyful and wrathful at the same time. God has the same amount of love joy peace anger wrath etc all the time because 1) he is those characteristics 2) and those characteristics are unchangeable in their function, quality and quantity.


----------



## earl40 (Nov 25, 2018)

OPC'n said:


> Yes he is always joyful because he never changes. On the other hand he is always wrathful because he never changes. I don't believe God experiences emotion the same way we do. We can't be joyful and wrathful at the same time. God has the same amount of love joy peace anger wrath etc all the time because 1) he is those characteristics 2) and those characteristics are unchangeable in their function, quality and quantity.



Was God wrathful before creation?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## lynnie (Nov 25, 2018)

I think what people mean is that we can grieve the Holy Spirit. You don't want to imply that our willful sin does not grieve God, in the midst of his unimaginable joy. It does, and it matters to obey Him.


----------



## OPC'n (Nov 25, 2018)

earl40 said:


> Was God wrathful before creation?



Yes, God never changes. We get angry over an act of sin when it happens. God has known for all eternity all the sin that would happen. He has for eternity been wrathful against that sin and will continue to be wrathful against that sin.


----------



## earl40 (Nov 25, 2018)

OPC'n said:


> Yes, God never changes. We get angry over an act of sin when it happens. God has known for all eternity all the sin that would happen. He has for eternity been wrathful against that sin and will continue to be wrathful against that sin.



I don't like that god at all. Sorry to sound crass, but that is not the God of scripture.


----------



## OPC'n (Nov 25, 2018)

earl40 said:


> I don't like that god at all. Sorry to sound crass, but that is not the God of scripture.



Do you believe that God changes?


----------



## earl40 (Nov 25, 2018)

lynnie said:


> I think what people mean is that we can grieve the Holy Spirit. You don't want to imply that our willful sin does not grieve God, in the midst of his unimaginable joy. It does, and it matters to obey Him.



I will go beyond implying, and say unequivocally you can not grieve God. Anthropopathism.....


----------



## earl40 (Nov 25, 2018)

OPC'n said:


> Do you believe that God changes?



No


----------



## OPC'n (Nov 25, 2018)

earl40 said:


> No



Then he has had to have been wrathful for all eternity. If he wasn't wrathful before creation then became wrathful after creation (the fall), then he would have surely changed from being not wrathful to being wrathful.


----------



## Filter (Nov 25, 2018)

It seems that question has to do with God's immutability and, concerning whether or not we can grieve God, His impassibility. Both of these traditionally taught doctrines have been misrepresented and twisted recently, leading to unwarranted hostility towards them (especially impassibility). 

As a bit of a Thomist, I believe that indeed God is perpetually joyful _and _perpetually wrathful. To say otherwise is to deny His immutability and pure actuality (which I know there are various views on). I don't believe that God can be any more or less than who He is - His essence _and _His existence are identical. Therefore what is essentially true about Him cannot _not _exist or be any different than what it is. For example, it's not that God is loving and _won't _be unloving; it's that He _can't_ be unloving because His nature is love (1 John 4:8 , 2 Timothy 2:13, Titus 1:2). 

If one defines God's wrath as His "intense hatred of all sin" (Wayne Grudem's definition in his Bible Doctrine, p. 94), then certainly He is eternally wrathful. To deny that is not only to deny His immutability but all His justice, goodness, and other attributes, as it would suggest that God at one point is/was tolerant of sin. Again, it's not that God _won't _tolerate sin, it's that God _can't _tolerate sin - wrath against sin is His nature. 

Impassibility is tougher; anthropomorphism _may _be sufficient to suggest that God doesn't suffer, but there are several accounts of God 'grieving' in the Bible that don't suggest it. To me, Elihu in the Book of Job asks a very difficult question: "If you sin, how does it affect God? If you multiply your transgressions, what does it do to Him?" (Job 35:6). Whether you believe Elihu is speaking wrongfully or correctly about God, there are massive implications each way. 
Then again, admitting God's passibility would seem to 1) deny His aseity 2) deny His separate ontological order distinct from creation and 3) deny His immutability and pure actuality _unless_ we suggest that He _perpetually _suffers, which would seemingly conflict with perpetual joy. Admitting God's passibility would seem to make Him reactive instead of proactive (sort of like denying God's work in our salvation).

To me, our God is much greater than what we can think or imagine. We are _like _Him, but we are _not _Him. The way we observe and act in our world may be hold similarities to God in the fact that we are made in His image, but they aren't going to be identical. If it isn't expressly stated or (even if it is expressly stated) emphasized in Scripture, it's not a hill I'm going to die on or channel all of my energy towards.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Nov 25, 2018)

God does not move from one state to another. No variableness, no shadow of turning. No passions, no parts. Immutable. God is perfectly impassioned.

God's love, wrath, and so on are not affections, or feelings, or dispositions. Rather they are relations and actions decreed by God.

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 2


----------



## Herald (Nov 25, 2018)

There was a vigorous discussion that took place on the PB years ago about divine emotivity. I'm no expert on the topic, but I can see how anthropomorphic language in relation to divine emotivity quickly loses its relevance. If by emotion we mean God understanding His being, that cannot be argued against. God is the most perfect of all beings (1689 LBC 2.1; 2.2). If we use the word emotion to describe a subjective response by God to something outside of Himself, that is where I think we step on uncertain ground.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 25, 2018)

OPC'n said:


> Then he has had to have been wrathful for all eternity. If he wasn't wrathful before creation then became wrathful after creation (the fall), then he would have surely changed from being not wrathful to being wrathful.



Since on the standard gloss all attributes are the essence, he is always wrathful by definition. But that raises another question: wrathful _towards what_? Is wrath intentional (meaning intending towards an object)? If so, and if he is always wrathful, then the objects of his wrath--presumably creation and not the Son--must be eternal. This is Origenism.


----------



## Filter (Nov 25, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Since on the standard gloss all attributes are the essence, he is always wrathful by definition. But that raises another question: wrathful _towards what_? Is wrath intentional (meaning intending towards an object)? If so, and if he is always wrathful, then the objects of his wrath--presumably creation and not the Son--must be eternal. This is Origenism.



I suppose this is contingent upon one's ontological perspective of existing things. For example (taking from Edward Feser in his book 'Aquinas'), martians don't have being (since they don't 'exist'). However, that doesn't mean that the word 'martian' is meaningless - we can still grasp the _concept_ of martians, even though they don't actually have being. In fact, one major essence of martians is that they _don't _exist; whatever _does exist_ _cannot be a martian_. 

That being said, although God's knowledge is eternally perfect (He doesn't learn anything chronologically - all of His knowledge is immediate), there still, at least to us as finite beings existing within the constraints of time, a sense of chronology. And in this sense God 'knew/knows' what evil is (anything not in conformity to His nature/decrees), even if that concept of evil was yet to be manifest or actualized in reality. Therefore, the objects of His wrath would not need to have being eternally in order for God's wrath against the concept of evil to have being (see the peripatetic axiom). Something doesn't need to be paired to an 'act of existing' (To use Thomas Aquinas' terminology) in order to be conceptualized and therefore objected for or against.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## OPC'n (Nov 25, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Since on the standard gloss all attributes are the essence, he is always wrathful by definition. But that raises another question: wrathful _towards what_? Is wrath intentional (meaning intending towards an object)? If so, and if he is always wrathful, then the objects of his wrath--presumably creation and not the Son--must be eternal. This is Origenism.



I've never heard of Origenism so I looked it up and here's what I found. "The opinions of Origen of Alexandria, who lived in the 3d century, one of the most learned of the Greek Fathers. Prominent in his teaching was the doctrine that all created beings, including Satan, will ultimately be saved."

I'm not sure what that has to do with what you're speaking about. Maybe he had another doctrine you can explain.

Why must we be eternal in order for God to have wrath against each person who has ever existed? Seems to me you're putting the emphasis on man rather than on God.

It's beyond our ability to understand life without time because we aren't eternal. But maybe this example can be beneficial in trying to understand it in a humanly way. God's knowledge to him is like our hand to us. Our hand has always been with us. We can't remember when we didn't have our hand. It is apart of who we are. God's knowledge is who he is. He has never been without his knowledge. Therefore, his knowledge is eternal. What makes up his knowledge? All things. Therefore, we have existed in his knowledge for all eternity. Does that make us eternal? Well, no because I'm of a certain age and so is the next person. We have a birthdate. What is eternal then? God's knowledge of us is eternal.

We can't decide that God does not have eternal knowledge in order to prevent some weird doctrine that says, "If God knew about us for all eternity, that makes us eternal.". Not only is that not logical from a human standpoint of evidence (our birthdate), but it's not logical from a God characteristic standpoint. God can't be omniscient and at the same time not know about future births. So what takes precedence? God's omniscience takes precedence and then we have to work things out from there. We know from Scripture that God is omniscient. We know from Scripture that he is the one who is eternal. So what does that make us? That makes us human beings who were formed in our mother's womb which God in all eternity decided when, where and to whom we would be born.

Now, since God has always known from all eternity each person who would be formed in the womb and all the sin they would commit, why is it hard for us to understand that God's wrath has burned from all eternity against that sinner that would be born on such and such a date? We know that God doesn't change. He didn't become wrathful against that sinner at the time of that person's birth. That would make him changeable.

When Christ came and paid for God's children's sins by taking God's wrath upon himself, God's wrath did not disappear from himself. Again that would be God changing from being wrathful to being not wrathful. His wrath doesn't wax or wane within Himself. It's unchanging. His wrath is not upon us anymore because of what Christ did. Well, what happened to his wrath then? He just turned his wrath away from us. We don't feel his wrath but that doesn't mean his wrath has disappeared or has changed in intensity. It only means we aren't under his wrath .... his wrath that never changes in quality or quantity.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## lynnie (Nov 25, 2018)

When scripture seems to present two things that don't seem to fit together, you need to believe them both. Election and moral culpability for unbelief. God is one and three. Etc.

I know John Frame isn't highly regarded here by some, but I appreciate him deeply. He has a section in one book about how impassiblity does not negate a clear biblical presentation of a God who can be grieved. I personally think that God is so pure and holy and perfect that whatever his grieving looks like is immeasurably deeper than any human sorrow tainted by our sin nature. Yet he exists in perfect joy. Light is a wave and a particle.....how can it be both?

Some things are a mystery.


----------



## Ed Walsh (Nov 26, 2018)

OPC'n said:


> Then he has had to have been wrathful for all eternity. If he wasn't wrathful before creation then became wrathful after creation (the fall), then he would have surely changed from being not wrathful to being wrathful.



Hi Sarah,

I know this post is a little late, but I read this just now from Fisher's Catechism and thought it was relevant to your _reductio ad absurdum_.

Question 21-22 are for context. Question 23 is the one I have in mind in regards to your statement:

From the Westminster Shorter Catechism

*QUESTION 4. What is God?
ANSWER: God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable,
in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.*

*OF THE NATURE AND PERFECTIONS OF GOD IN GENERAL*
Sub questions 21-23​
Q. 21. What are the rays of divine glory in the face of Jesus Christ by which we come to know God savingly?
A. They are the attributes and perfections of his nature, by which he is pleased to manifest himself; such as, that he is infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.

Q. 22. Are these attributes of God, distinct things from God himself, or the divine essence?
A. By no means; for, whatever is in God, is God himself; and therefore the infinity of all perfection, is inseparable from the divine essence.

Q. 23. Are the divine attributes separable from one another, so as that which is infinite should not be eternal, and that which is infinite and eternal, should not be unchangeable, and so of the rest?
A. All perfections whatsoever being inseparable from God, must also be inseparable from one another; for though we, through weakness, must think and speak of them separately, yet all of them taken together, are, properly speaking, but the one infinite perfection of the divine nature, which cannot be separated from it, without granting that God is not infinitely perfect, which would be the height of blasphemy to suppose.

Reactions: Like 1 | Edifying 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 26, 2018)

OPC'n said:


> "The opinions of Origen of Alexandria, who lived in the 3d century, one of the most learned of the Greek Fathers. Prominent in his teaching was the doctrine that all created beings, including Satan, will ultimately be saved."



He taught much more than that. He had such a strong view of divine simplicity that the objects of God's will were also eternal, which led him to posit an eternal creation.


----------



## Taylor (Nov 26, 2018)

In my own opinion, some questions which deal with the divine nature, being inherently speculative, really ought never to be asked, for reasons exhibited in this very thread. God is incomprehensible, after all. He can be understood, of course, but the moment we start asking questions like these, I believe we may be trying to penetrate too deeply into the uncreated for our created minds to cope.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## earl40 (Nov 26, 2018)

Taylor Sexton said:


> In my own opinion, some questions which deal with the divine nature, being inherently speculative, really ought never to be asked, for reasons exhibited in this very thread. God is incomprehensible, after all. He can be understood, of course, but the moment we start asking questions like these, I believe we may be trying to penetrate too deeply into the uncreated for our created minds to cope.



Many times what you said is correct but this subject. To incorrectly think God has anger (or any emption) in Himself is touching on a doctrine we ought to study and embrace as Christians correctly. I understand this is a touchy subject for both sides, and in my opinion is one that ought to be discussed with passion and understanding. I hope some of out Pastors here will chime in, for I know many Pastors will not even address this subject because of the emotions involved.

This discussion is all part of the of the dual natures of Jesus and ought to be contemplated deeply and with great humility. For I know at one time I mixed the natures of Jesus on this subject, and greatly regret such.


----------



## Taylor (Nov 26, 2018)

earl40 said:


> Many times what you said is correct but this subject. To incorrectly think God has anger (or any emption) in Himself is touching on a doctrine we ought to study and embrace as Christians correctly. I understand this is a touchy subject for both sides, and in my opinion is one that ought to be discussed with passion and understanding. I hope some of out Pastors here will chime in, for I know many Pastors will not even address this subject because of the emotions involved.
> 
> This discussion is all part of the of the dual natures of Jesus and ought to be contemplated deeply and with great humility. For I know at one time I mixed the natures of Jesus on this subject, and greatly regret such.



I’m not saying this subject is unimportant. But there is a difference between affirming and cherishing necessary doctrines in an orthodox manner while still struggling with how those truths exactly flesh out or how they “work.” But we still have to remember that God is incomprehensible, and his ways are not ours. I only said what I said on this subject, first, because of the very nature of the subject, and second, because there have already been in this thread implicit accusations of brothers and sisters worshipping other gods, all over such a difficult—and likely truly incomprehensible—subject for finite minds to begin with.

I’ve seen this with discussions surrounding the Trinity. I have seen orthodox, Nicene trinitarians accused of heresy simply because they failed to give an explanation or analogy of how the Trinity “works” that satisfied the other party, despite the fact that both affirmed Nicea and Chalcedon. That’s when these discussions go too far. The creeds and confessions have wisdom in that they state the doctrine without trying to flesh it out. Sometimes that’s all we should do. God is unchangeable, impassible, eternal. Full stop. Go no further. Calvin has this wisdom, as well.

Others may disagree, of course, and everyone is free to have their opinion, but this is mine.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## OPC'n (Nov 26, 2018)

earl40 said:


> Many times what you said is correct but this subject. To incorrectly think God has anger (or any emption) in Himself is touching on a doctrine we ought to study and embrace as Christians correctly. I understand this is a touchy subject for both sides, and in my opinion is one that ought to be discussed with passion and understanding. I hope some of out Pastors here will chime in, for I know many Pastors will not even address this subject because of the emotions involved.
> 
> This discussion is all part of the of the dual natures of Jesus and ought to be contemplated deeply and with great humility. For I know at one time I mixed the natures of Jesus on this subject, and greatly regret such.



I wasn’t speaking to the dual natures of Jesus. I was only speaking to your question on whether or not God had wrath before creation. I don’t find this to be a touchy subject. I think as long as people support their statements with Scripture we can learn from each other. I’m still interested in how you get from God having no wrath to having wrath and yet holding to his immutability at the same time. I promise to be civil


----------



## earl40 (Nov 26, 2018)

OPC'n said:


> I wasn’t speaking to the dual natures of Jesus. I was only speaking to your question on whether or not God had wrath before creation. I don’t find this to be a touchy subject. I think as long as people support their statements with Scripture we can learn from each other. I’m still interested in how you get from God having no wrath to having wrath and yet holding to his immutability at the same time. I promise to be civil



So far as God netting out justice it is without any thought of anger, for if He did “who could stand”? Now so far as God being wrathful or angry before creation there was no creation before He created and these emotions are not properly ascribed to God’s attributes or nature. I understate your stance about God knowing what will transpire in the future but the fact is one should not predicate the future with the essential nature of The Divine. This would have God a contingent being based on that future. Also this conversation does revole around the human and divine nature of Jesus, in that as Acts says there is no passion in God. I understand the reluctance to to think in this way for many leanered men such as Professor Frame and Oliphant have erred greatly here along with all those who were taught by these men.


----------



## Smeagol (Nov 26, 2018)

I am not sure we should say that the "Wrath" of God is an attribute (proper), but rather an action, necessary against ALL sin and unrighteousness, flowing from the attribute of "Justice" which is eternal.

P.S. This is really a new can of worms that gets far away from the OP, in my opinion

P.P.S. This is difficult because questions are being raised in time "before creation". Well God is outside of time, so that makes it even more difficult. That is why the above comment I gave makes the most sense to *my* finite brain.


----------



## earl40 (Nov 26, 2018)

Taylor Sexton said:


> I’m not saying this subject is unimportant. But there is a difference between affirming and cherishing necessary doctrines in an orthodox manner while still struggling with how those truths exactly flesh out or how they “work.” But we still have to remember that God is incomprehensible, and his ways are not ours. I only said what I said on this subject, first, because of the very nature of the subject, and second, because there have already been in this thread implicit accusations of brothers and sisters worshipping other gods, all over such a difficult—and likely truly incomprehensible—subject for finite minds to begin with.
> 
> I’ve seen this with discussions surrounding the Trinity. I have seen orthodox, Nicene trinitarians accused of heresy simply because they failed to give an explanation or analogy of how the Trinity “works” that satisfied the other party, despite the fact that both affirmed Nicea and Chalcedon. That’s when these discussions go too far. The creeds and confessions have wisdom in that they state the doctrine without trying to flesh it out. Sometimes that’s all we should do. God is unchangeable, impassible, eternal. Full stop. Go no further. Calvin has this wisdom, as well.
> 
> Others may disagree, of course, and everyone is free to have heir opinion, but this is mine.



We may not know God as He is in Himself but we can know what God is not and this includes Him being angry or having emotions.


----------



## OPC'n (Nov 26, 2018)

earl40 said:


> So far as God netting out justice it is without any thought of anger, for if He did “who could stand”? Now so far as God being wrathful or angry before creation there was no creation before He created and these emotions are not properly ascribed to God’s attributes or nature. I understate your stance about God knowing what will transpire in the future but the fact is one should not predicate the future with the essential nature of The Divine. This would have God a contingent being based on that future. Also this conversation does revole around the human and divine nature of Jesus, in that as Acts says there is no passion in God. I understand the reluctance to to think in this way for many leanered men such as Professor Frame and Oliphant have erred greatly here along with all those who were taught by these men.



Perhaps you could explain what you mean by "emotions". If you mean God isn't emotional, then I would have to agree. If you mean God is void of love, joy, peace, anger, wrath etc. and these characteristics are not the essence of who he is, then I would have to disagree. I don't believe you can compare our emotions to that of God's. Ours are changeable. I could be angry one moment then happy the next moment depending on the circumstances surrounding me. So if I'm of a weak character my surroundings control my emotions. If I'm of a strong character, I don't allow my circumstances to control my emotions but allow appropriate reactions to situations. In either case, my emotions are changeable. 

When speaking about God he is in control of all things, and therefore, circumstances do not control his emotions (perhaps this is a bad choice of words but I'm using it because you keep using it. I prefer to use "his characteristics"). His love for us doesn't wax and wane based on our love for him waxing and waning. He is love and he gives us that love in a constant and fixed manner. Him being love is far above our love. The love we have is something we feel not something we are. God's love is who he is there is not one part of him that isn't love and the same for all his characteristics. His wrath against sin shouldn't be viewed as something that is ungodly. His wrath is righteous and well deserved by mankind, but you know this I'm sure. God doesn't become wrathful when a person sins. He is wrath. His wrath is constant and unchanging in quality and quantity. He turns his wrath upon some people and turns his wrath away from some people as he chooses. This isn't a sign of waxing and waning emotion or of becoming wrathful or becoming non-wrathful (pretty sure that's not a word lol).

I think what trips up the thinking process is using the word "emotion" instead of using "his characteristics". We also cannot think of his characteristics in terms of human experience. God doesn't experience anything. To experience something is to change from one situation to another. God doesn't change. We experience happiness, love, joy etc. God is just those things.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Filter (Nov 26, 2018)

lynnie said:


> I know John Frame isn't highly regarded here by some, but I appreciate him deeply. He has a section in one book about how impassiblity does not negate a clear biblical presentation of a God who can be grieved.



I like John Frame, though he does make the mistake (I believe) of defining impassibility as the "denial of God as having emotions or feelings, and that He suffers" in his _Doctrine of God: The Theology of Lordship_ (2002). Impassibility was classically defined as only related to whether or not God suffers (from the latin _passio_ - 'to suffer', or 'be afflicted'), and that is how many early church fathers (Irenaeus, Origen, Augustine, Theodoret, Anselm, etc.) used it (i.e. Origen certainly affirmed the anger of God in his _First Principles_). Acts 1:3 is a good example of seeing _passio_ in the Vulgate. The evolution of the term took place around the 14th century and came to mean 'emotions' in general, and that is reflected in the writings of Calvin, Luther, and modern theologians.

I do, however, respect Frame's insight later in his book when he writes that "what precise feelings He [God] experiences we do not know, and we would be wise not to speculate". I would agree that strict dogmatism has no place here.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## earl40 (Nov 26, 2018)

Filter said:


> I like John Frame, though he does make the mistake (I believe) of defining impassibility as the "denial of God as having emotions or feelings, and that He suffers" in his _Doctrine of God: The Theology of Lordship_ (2002). Impassibility was classically defined as only related to whether or not God suffers (from the latin _passio_ - 'to suffer', or 'be afflicted'), and that is how many early church fathers (Irenaeus, Origen, Augustine, Theodoret, Anselm, etc.) used it (i.e. Origen certainly affirmed the anger of God in his _First Principles_). Acts 1:3 is a good example of seeing _passio_ in the Vulgate. The evolution of the term took place around the 14th century and came to mean 'emotions' in general, and that is reflected in the writings of Calvin, Luther, and modern theologians.
> 
> I do, however, respect Frame's insight later in his book when he writes that "what precise feelings He [God] experiences we do not know, and we would be wise not to speculate". I would agree that strict dogmatism has no place here.



Strict dogmatism I shall espouse now. God does not have emotions, or feeling in any way shape or form.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## earl40 (Nov 26, 2018)

Calvin...."For because our weakness does not attain to his exalted state, the description of him that is given to us must be accommodated to our capacity so that we may understand it. Now the mode of accommodation is for him to represent himself to us not as he is in himself, but as he seems to us. Although he is beyond all disturbance of mind, yet he testifies that he is angry toward sinners. Therefore _whenever we hear that God is angered, we ought not to imagine any emotion in him_, but rather to consider that this expression has been taken from our own human experience; because God, whenever he is exercising judgment, exhibits the appearance of one kindled and angered. So we ought not to understand anything else under the word ‘repentance’ than change of action, because men are wont by changing their action to testify that they are displeased with themselves (emphasis added)."


----------



## Filter (Nov 26, 2018)

earl40 said:


> Acts says there is no passion in God



Can I get a citation for this please?


----------



## earl40 (Nov 27, 2018)

Filter said:


> Can I get a citation for this please?



Below you will see The Apostles, Barnabas and Paul saying they are no gods because they have passions like other men. 

"11 And when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men.....14 Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,
15 And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein:"


----------



## Taylor (Nov 27, 2018)

earl40 said:


> Below you will see The Apostles, Barnabas and Paul saying they are no gods because they have passions like other men.
> 
> "11 And when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men.....14 Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,
> 15 And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein:"



You are unnecessarily restricting the exegetical possibilities of this passage, brother. The Greek word used here is ὁμοιοπαθεῖς, which the KJV rightly translates as "like passions." You are reversing the _English_ word order and making Paul say that he has "passions like" them, rather than "like (i.e., _similar_) passions" with them. The Greek says the latter, not the former, and there is a difference. Logically (and thus exegetically), we could conclude, as you have, that either that God has _no_ passions, *or* that God has_ different_ passions ("hetero-" rather than "homoio-"). As I said, you are concluding definitively the former at the expense of the latter. The latter, in my opinion, is better exegetically, since the smoother opposite of "homoio-" is "hetero-."

(Disclosure: I affirm God's impassibility, so this is not an attempt to discredit the doctrine. I just have an interest in exegetical fidelity, even when the conclusion of any one particular instance ends up not necessarily supporting my doctrine. God's impassibility can be supported, for sure, I just don't think it's by this text.)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 27, 2018)

And whatever your position is, remember we are speaking analogically of God. So if we do say God has emotions (like he grieves, repents, sorrow, wrath), it is in an analogical sense.

I think that is missing from this conversation.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## earl40 (Nov 27, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> And whatever your position is, remember we are speaking analogically of God. So if we do say God has emotions (like he grieves, repents, sorrow, wrath), it is in an analogical sense.
> 
> I think that is missing from this conversation.



If there is any similarity we would have an analogy. When we us “as if” language the concept excludes any true analogy if the discussion is about the Archtypal God. So the Arch Ecty is vital and analogy falls because God is wholly other than men,and in a class by Himself.


----------



## earl40 (Nov 27, 2018)

Taylor Sexton said:


> You are unnecessarily restricting the exegetical possibilities of this passage, brother. The Greek word used here is ὁμοιοπαθεῖς, which the KJV rightly translates as "like passions." You are reversing the _English_ word order and making Paul say that he has "passions like" them, rather than "like (i.e., _similar_) passions" with them. The Greek says the latter, not the former, and there is a difference. Logically (and thus exegetically), we could conclude, as you have, that either that God has _no_ passions, *[you]or[/you]* that God has_ different_ passions ("hetero-" rather than "homoio-"). As I said, you are concluding definitively the former at the expense of the latter. The latter, in my opinion, is better exegetically, since the smoother opposite of "homoio-" is "hetero-."
> 
> (Disclosure: I affirm God's impassibility, so this is not an attempt to discredit the doctrine. I just have an interest in exegetical fidelity, even when the conclusion of any one particular instance ends up not necessarily supporting my doctrine. God's impassibility can be supported, for sure, I just don't think it's by this text.)


So you believe God has passions?


----------



## Taylor (Nov 27, 2018)

earl40 said:


> So you believe God has passions?



Did you read my entire post?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 27, 2018)

earl40 said:


> If there is any similarity we would have an analogy. When we us “as if” language the concept excludes any true analogy if the discussion is about the Archtypal God. So the Arch Ecty is vital and analogy falls because God is wholly other than men,and in a class by Himself.



I think you are making the archetypal distinction carry more weight than it was intended. If you deny analogical reasoning, then you must either posit univocal or equivocal--and neither works.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## earl40 (Nov 27, 2018)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Did you read my entire post?



I did, and I would leave no idea "that God has_ different_ passions" as you just did with your understanding of Greek. Note the reference given for the exclusions of passions in the WCF and how it uses it to deny any passion in God..... "There is but one only,[1] living, and true God,[2] who is infinite in being and perfection,[3] a most pure spirit,[4] invisible,[5] without body, parts,[6] or passions"

Now Acts is but one place one can go to to nail this one down and the immutability of God which rules out some other type of passion in God.


----------



## earl40 (Nov 27, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I think you are making the archetypal distinction carry more weight than it was intended. If you deny analogical reasoning, then you must either posit univocal or equivocal--and neither works.



I understand you may think you know God "in se" to some degree, and of course I do not.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 27, 2018)

earl40 said:


> I understand you may think you know God "in se" to some degree, and of course I do not.



I wouldn't even know what knowing God "in himself" actually means. But since God isn't a different God than who he reveals himself to be, I'm not too worried.

When you say God is love, do you mean love in the way we do (univocal) reasoning, in a completely different way than the word love is used (equivocal) reasoning, or in a similar way, acknowledging both similarities and differences (analogical) reasoning?


----------



## py3ak (Nov 27, 2018)

Ed Walsh said:


> Do you think God, essentially considered, is always happy?



If you use the language of "blessed" Scripture doesn't leave much room for question:

Mark 14:61 - "the Blessed" is a title for God.
Romans 1:25 - God is blessed for ever.
Romans 9:5 - Christ is God over all blessed for ever.
2 Corinthians 11:31 - God is blessed for evermore.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 27, 2018)

Blessed is better than happy (though in the classical sense, eudamion was closer to blessed). Today happy means the teenage girl who just watched a Kardashian episode.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Nov 27, 2018)

earl40 said:


> I did, and I would leave no idea "that God has_ different_ passions" as you just did with your understanding of Greek. Not the reference given for the exclusions of passions in the WCF and how it uses it to deny any passion in God..... "There is but one only,[1] living, and true God,[2] who is infinite in being and perfection,[3] a most pure spirit,[4] invisible,[5] without body, parts,[6] or passions"



I never said God had "different" passions. I was merely pointing out that it is exegetically fallacious to assert by means of exclusion of other perfectly valid possibilities. I did not even mention the fact that BDAG (the standard Greek lexicon) does not limit this word to just pertaining to "passions."

But, like I said above, I affirm God's impassibility (which is why I was puzzled when you asked me if I thought God has passions). I just don't think Acts 14:15 is the best place to go for it. I realize the WCF utilizes this text, of course. However, am I not permitted to affirm the doctrine while disagreeing with the choice of proof text?



earl40 said:


> ...the immutability of God rules out some other type of passion in God.



Exactly. Immutability is a better anchor than Acts 14:15.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Nov 27, 2018)

earl40 said:


> God does not have emotions, or feeling in any way shape or form.



Of course, there are major theologians who, as I read them, disagree with "in any way, shape, or form." Consider Vos here:

_119. Is there emotion or feeling in God?_

Not *in the sense* of an intense transitory movement of emotion, something passive, whereby the will retreats into the background (compare _affectus_ from _afficere_, “to be affected”). *Certainly*, however, *in the sense* of an inner divine satisfaction that accompanies the energetic expression of His will and His power and His understanding.

—Geerhardus Vos,_ Reformed Dogmatics_, Volume 1: Theology Proper (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012), 35.​
For Vos, there is at least_ some_ sense in which God has feeling/emotion.

In truth, I am wondering if we are defining "impassibility" and "without passions" aright. The reason I wonder this is because of a curious piece I found in Turretin in which he describes our glorified bodies as possessing impassibility:

To this immortality belongs impassiblity, by which they will be subject to no passions at all, internal or external. Not to internal because there will no longer be in them the tinder of concupiscence, no defilement of sin, no inordinate desire (_pathos_)—but they will be wholly pure and uncontaminated. In this sense, Paul says flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven (i.e., as to their depravity or misery). Not to external either, because there will no longer be anything which can bring suffering or grief to them, for divine irradiation will keep them safe from all danger, necessity and evil. 'They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat' (Rev. 7:16). 'There shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain' (Rev. 21:4). Thus neither from without nor from within can they suffer anything; perfect health and a good state (_euexia_) of body will keep them free from all disease; an entire removal of all evils and the possession of all good will deliver them from all misery and danger.

—Francis Turretin,_ Institutes of Elenctic Theology_ (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1992-1997), 3:619.​
Is Turretin in saying this that there will be no emotion whatsoever with our glorified bodies? I doubt it. After all, just before this paragraph he defined impassibility as the "incapability of suffering."

This is one of the reasons why I offered my caution in my first comment in this thread; these discussions often get derailed simply because nobody has or even can define these kinds of terms in a way that is agreeable to everyone, not to mention yet again that we are discussion the incomprehensible nature and being of God to begin with. So everyone ends up talking past one another, at best, and, at worst, accusing each other of heresy and worshipping false gods.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Nov 27, 2018)

Perhaps this got lost in the fast moving discussion:



Ask Mr. Religion said:


> God does not move from one state to another. No variableness, no shadow of turning. No passions, no parts. Immutable. God is perfectly _impassioned_.
> 
> God's love, wrath, and so on are not affections, or feelings, or dispositions. Rather they are relations and actions decreed by God.


God does not have any inward changes of mind. God does not lack, hence God is eternally blessed, and we can say _The Lord is my Shepherd, I shall not want_. Why? God possesses all that is necessary to make us blessed, and does not need us to make Himself blessed. Any Scripture that would lead us to think otherwise of God—repenting, unknowing about this or that, lacking glory, etc.—can only be figurative, not literal.

The words we ascribe to our transitive and responsive emotions, when spoken of God in Scripture, are actually _volitions_, the will of God (Eph. 1:11).

God's _repentance_ is God's volition will of a change in judicial procedure. There is not a change in God Himself.

The _wrath _of God is God's volitional will to stand in opposition and even destroy what is contrary to justice.

God's _love_ is God's volitional will to set His preferences upon another and acting accordingly. God is not _reacting_, but eternally _acting _in His love.

God's _jealousy _is God's volitional will whereby He stands ready to inflict harm on behalf of His glory (to avenge).

God's _pleasure _is God's volitional will for what is good and His active pursuit of the good.

God's _grief _is God's volitional will to withdraw the ongoing replenishment of some measure of graces and comforts upon another.

God is never acted upon, for God is most pure act, effecting change outside of Himself in His full potency.

Muller (attached below) is also worth a read.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 2 | Edifying 1


----------



## lynnie (Nov 27, 2018)

Debated bothering to be nitpicky, but here goes....

Earl.....you said "This discussion is all part of the of the dual natures of Jesus and ought to be contemplated deeply and with great humility. For I know at one time I mixed the natures of Jesus on this subject, and greatly regret such."

That's OK to debate about love and wrath if you like, but when somebody specifically brings up grieving the holy spirit, please do not speak as if the Holy Spirit has a dual nature. I am sure you have a correct understanding of the trinity, but when scripture refers to the Holy Spirit, don't try to twist it back to just about Jesus in his humanity. Thanks.


----------



## earl40 (Nov 28, 2018)

lynnie said:


> Debated bothering to be nitpicky, but here goes....
> 
> Earl.....you said "This discussion is all part of the of the dual natures of Jesus and ought to be contemplated deeply and with great humility. For I know at one time I mixed the natures of Jesus on this subject, and greatly regret such."
> 
> That's OK to debate about love and wrath if you like, but when somebody specifically brings up grieving the holy spirit, please do not speak as if the Holy Spirit has a dual nature. I am sure you have a correct understanding of the trinity, but when scripture refers to the Holy Spirit, don't try to twist it back to just about Jesus in his humanity. Thanks.



Now when I speak of the dual natures of Jesus this includes the nature of The Holy Spirit. Who is neither grieved or angry in Himself, like the divine nature of Jesus, which of course is of the same essence of The Father and Spirit. Make no mistake if one thinks that God can be grieved, one is not thinking in a proper way about the nature of Our God.


----------



## lynnie (Nov 28, 2018)

Earl, the bible commands us not to grieve the Holy Spirit. The question is what the definition of that looks like.

I am going to go back and reread Culver (he is like like Mr R I think) and take a look at Frame again, but haven't done it yet. I make no claim to having this figured out. Neither one of them would say- as I heard a nice lady say- that we cause so much pain to Jesus and he hurts because of us and God needs us to love him and not rebel or else he suffers pain. 

But Earl- will you please stop trying to say the bible does not talk about grieving the Holy Spirit, in Ephesians, after the Lord was resurrected and glorified past any further human suffering. 

This is from Ligonier:

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/grieving-the-holy-spirit/

The apostle Paul makes this very point in Ephesians 4:30 when he warns us not to “grieve the Holy Spirit of God.” When we sin, the Holy Spirit experiences grief in a manner appropriate to His deity. He cannot stand the presence of sin and hates it when we, His dwelling place, entertain transgression (Hab. 1:13). Yet even though the reality of His grief proves the Spirit’s personhood, His grief is not exactly the same as ours. The Spirit cannot be paralyzed by grief, and His grief is always holy, undefiled by sin, ungodly jealousy, and all the other flaws that often attend our sorrow. His grief, ultimately, is a mystery. John Calvin comments, “No language can adequately express this solemn truth, that the Holy Spirit rejoices and is glad on our account, when we are obedient to him in all things, and neither think nor speak anything, but what is pure and holy; and, on the other hand, is grieved when we admit anything into our minds that is unworthy of our calling.”

I have no desire to argue with John Calvin on this. I may not understand what it means exactly, but I won't deny it.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 28, 2018)

earl40 said:


> Make no mistake if one thinks that God can be grieved, one is not thinking in a proper way about the nature of Our God.



Eph. 4:30. And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.


----------



## OPC'n (Nov 28, 2018)

earl40 said:


> Now when I speak of the dual natures of Jesus this includes the nature of The Holy Spirit. Who is neither grieved or angry in Himself, like the divine nature of Jesus, which of course is of the same essence of The Father and Spirit. Make no mistake if one thinks that God can be grieved, one is not thinking in a proper way about the nature of Our God.



I could be wrong in my assumption on your thought process, but would you say that you adhere to God having love, joy, peace, etc, but not anger, wrath, grief etc? BTW, I answered your question earlier not sure you saw it.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 28, 2018)

And some clarification of the archetypal distinction. It doesn't mean that there is a realm of knowledge forever unknown to us which we can appeal to whenever there is an issue. Its range is quite limited. 

For example, when the ancient fathers said God's essence was unknowable, they were combatting a specific heresy, Eunomianism. Eunomius said that God's essence was Unbegottenness. The Cappadocians' response was twofold:

a) God's essence isn't a term like Unbegottenness.
b) In any case, we have no idea what a spiritual begetting, generation, etc., is. We just posit it for lack of a better term.

That's all Archetypal can be milked for.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Nov 28, 2018)

As believers in Christ, a primary concern is to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Eph. 4:3). Thus, a grieving of the Holy Spirit (Eph. 4:30) must be understood in the right context of Ephesians 4.

There is a distinction between the human believer and the indwelling of the Spirit in that context. Grief is the pain made to happen to other members of the body of Christ. Moreover, grief is the pain caused to the body as a whole.

Divisions, schisms, rents in the church are akin to wounds, breaking of bones, in the natural body. These things dilute the body, deface it. They bring dishonor upon Our Lord. They bring grief to the soul and the effect is to _minimize the Spirit's ability to work through the person so aggrieved_. Those so grieved come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts, even being subject to temporal punishment.

If we are going to apply the emotion of "grief" to the Holy Spirit we must take care to maintain the distinction between the divine and the human.

God's _grief _is God's volitional will to withdraw the ongoing replenishment of some measure of graces and comforts upon another.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Nov 28, 2018)

Jesus is God. Jesus wept. Therefore God has experienced weeping.


----------



## Taylor (Nov 28, 2018)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> Jesus is God. Jesus wept. Therefore God has experienced weeping.



More accurately, Jesus is the God-Man. We cannot therefore say that everything that happened to Jesus happened to God, otherwise we have have to say that God, at least for three days, actually died.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 28, 2018)

Most accurately, the Divine Person is the subject of all incarnate actions.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Nov 28, 2018)

Taylor Sexton said:


> More accurately, Jesus is the God-Man. We cannot therefore say that everything that happened to Jesus happened to God, otherwise we have have to say that God, at least for three days, actually died.


Brother, this is a fascinating topic. Good thought. How would your comment work with images of Jesus if the two nature's are separate?


----------



## Taylor (Nov 28, 2018)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> Brother, this is a fascinating topic. Good thought. How would your comment work with images of Jesus if the two nature's are separate?



In my opinion, this idea is enough to frighten anyone out of images of Christ, second commandment notwithstanding. If Jesus is the God-Man, and the divine nature cannot (and should not) be depicted graphically, then all images of Jesus are by definition misleading and false depictions of him, since the necessarily exclude one of his natures entirely.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Nov 28, 2018)

Are you saying the flesh is the Divine nature? If so, wouldn't that mean God wept? If not, wouldn't it be okay to make images because they are not of God, but of flesh? Thanks!


----------



## Taylor (Nov 28, 2018)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> Are you say the flesh is the Divine nature? If so, wouldn't that mean God wept? If not, wouldn't it be okay to make images because they are not of God, but of flesh? Thanks!



I’m saying that since deity cannot be depicted graphically, then depictions of Christ, since they by their nature can only depict Christ’s human nature and not his divine, are at very best misleading, showing him to be merely human.

Again, this is all notwithstanding the second commandment.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Nov 28, 2018)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> Brother, this is a fascinating topic. Good thought. How would your comment work with images of Jesus if the two nature's are separate?


How would one depict a nature in a picture? The humanity taken up (assumed) by the second Person of the Godhead was not an individuated person.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Nov 28, 2018)

Taylor Sexton said:


> I’m saying that since deity cannot be depicted graphically, then depictions of Christ, since they by their nature can only depict Christ’s human nature and not his divine, are at very best misleading, showing him to be merely human.
> 
> Again, this is all notwithstanding the second commandment.


Would you agree that the hypostatic union of Christ entails His human nature as being God? So, plainly, is the the body of Jesus considered God as well? If Jesus was a man of sorrows, could we say God knows what sorrow is because He has experienced it? Does this make our God the sympathetic high priest we read about?

To comment a few posts back, the hymn writer says "that thou my God should die for me." Our pastor once preached a sermon that taught God died on the cross.

I see both sides of it, and it's hard to really figure out the absolute truth in this area.


----------



## Smeagol (Nov 29, 2018)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> Would you agree that the hypostatic union of Christ entails His human nature as being God? So, plainly, is the the body of Jesus considered God as well? If Jesus was a man of sorrows, could we say God knows what sorrow is because He has experienced it? Does this make our God the sympathetic high priest we read about?
> 
> To comment a few posts back, the hymn writer says "that thou my God should die for me." Our pastor once preached a sermon that taught God died on the cross.
> 
> I see both sides of it, and it's hard to really figure out the absolute truth in this area.


Ryan,

You may find this short article one which will satisfy your question. Hope this helps.

https://www.ligonier.org/blog/it-accurate-say-god-died-cross/

For a deeper reading see Matthew Henry Commentary on John 3:13 (I bolded the text towards the end, which I think speaks most bluntly to your question:



> v. 13.First, None but Christ was able to reveal to us the will of God for our salvation. Nicodemus addressed Christ as a prophet; but he must know that he is greater than all the Old-Testament prophets, for none of them had ascended into heaven. They wrote by divine inspiration, and not of their own knowledge; see ch. 1:18 . Moses ascended into the mount, but not into heaven. No man hath attained to the certain knowledge of God and heavenly things as Christ has; see Mt. 11:27 . It is not for us to send to heaven for instructions; we must wait to receive what instructions Heaven will send to us; see Prov. 30:4 ; Deu. 30:12 .Secondly, Jesus Christ is able, and fit, and every way qualified, to reveal the will of God to us; for it is he that came down from heaven and is in heaven.He had said (v. 12), How shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things? Now here, 1. He gives them an instance of those heavenly things which he could tell them of, when he tells them of one that came down from heaven, and yet is the Son of man; is the Son of man, and yet is in heaven.If the regeneration of the soul of man is such a mystery, what then is the incarnation of the Son of God? These are divine and heavenly things indeed. We have here an intimation of Christ’s two distinct natures in one person: his divine nature, in which he came down from heaven; his human nature, in which he is the Son of man; and that union of those two, in that while he is the Son of man yet he is in heaven. 2. He gives them a proof of his ability to speak to them heavenly things, and to lead them into the arcana of the kingdom of heaven, by telling them, (1.) That he came down from heaven. The intercourse settled between God and man began above; the first motion towards it did not arise from this earth, but came down from heaven. We love him, and send to him, because he first loved us, and sent to us. Now this intimates, [1.] Christ’s divine nature. He that came down from heaven is certainly more than a mere man; he is the Lord from heaven, 1 Co. 15:47 . [2.] His intimate acquaintance with the divine counsels; for, coming from the court of heaven, he had been from eternity conversant with them. [3.] The manifestation of God. Under the Old Testament God’s favours to his people are expressed by his hearing from heaven (2 Chr. 7:14 ), looking from heaven (Ps. 80:14 ), speaking from heaven(Neh. 9:13 ), sending from heaven, Ps. 57:3 . But the New Testament shows us God coming down from heaven, to teach and save us. That he thus descended is an admirable mystery, for the Godhead cannot change places, nor did he bring his body from heaven; but that he thus condescendedfor our redemption is a more admirable mercy; herein he commended his love. (2.) That he is the Son of man, thatSon of man spoken of by Daniel (ch. 7:13 ), by which the Jews always understand to be meant the Messiah. Christ, in calling himself the Son of man, shows that he is the second Adam, for the first Adam was the father of man. And of all the Old-Testament titles of the Messiah he chose to make use of this, because it was most expressive of his humility, and most agreeable to his present state of humiliation. (3.) *That he is in heaven. Now at this time, when he is talking with Nicodemus on earth, yet, as God, he is in heaven. The Son of man, as such, was not in heaven till his ascension; but he that was the Son of man was now, by his divine nature, every where present, and particularly in heaven. Thus the Lord of glory, as such, could not be crucified, nor could God, as such, shed his blood; yet that person who was the Lord of glory was crucified (1 Co. 2:8 ), and God purchased the church with his own blood, Acts. 20:28* . So close is the union of the two natures in one person that there is a communication of properties. He doth not say hos esti . GOD is the ho on to ourano —he that is, and heaven is the habitation of his holiness.



There is a mystery to this, but there are some clear truths we must confess.


----------



## Taylor (Nov 29, 2018)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> Would you agree that the hypostatic union of Christ entails His human nature as being God?



Absolutely not. This is Eutychianism and is heresy. Jesus is one person in *two* natures, "inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Nov 29, 2018)

Second Helvetic Confession:
THE DIVINE NATURE OF Christ IS NOT PASSIBLE, AND THE HUMAN NATURE IS NOT EVERYWHERE.
Therefore, *we do not in any way teach that the divine nature in Christ has suffered* or that Christ according to his human nature is still in this world and thus is everywhere. For neither do we think or teach that the body of Christ ceased to be a true body after his glorification, or was deified, and deified in such a way that it laid aside its properties as regards body and soul, and changed entirely into a divine nature and began to be merely one substance.​
Belgic Confession:
Article 19: The Two Natures of Christ

We believe that by being thus conceived the person of the Son has been inseparably united and joined together with human nature, in such a way that there are not two Sons of God, nor two persons, but two natures united in a single person, with each nature retaining its own distinct properties.

Thus his divine nature has always remained uncreated, without beginning of days or end of life, (Heb. 7:3) filling heaven and earth.

His human nature has not lost its properties but continues to have those of a creature-- it has a beginning of days; it is of a finite nature and retains all that belongs to a real body. And even though he, by his resurrection, gave it immortality, that nonetheless did not change the reality of his human nature; for our salvation and resurrection depend also on the reality of his body.

But these two natures are so united together in one person that they are not even separated by his death.

So then, *what he committed to his Father when he died was a real human spirit which left his body*. But meanwhile his divine nature remained united with his human nature even when he was lying in the grave; and his deity never ceased to be in him, just as it was in him when he was a little child, though for a while it did not show itself as such.

These are the reasons why we confess him to be true God and true man—true God in order to conquer death by his power, and true man that he might die for us in the weakness of his flesh.​
WCF 8.7:
Christ, in the work of mediation, acts according to both natures, by each nature doing that which is proper to itself; (Heb. 9:14, 1 Pet. 3:18) yet, by reason of *the unity of the person*, that which is proper to one nature is sometimes in scripture *attributed to the person* denominated by the other nature. (Acts 20:28, John 3:13, 1 John 3:16)​
The Second Person of the Godhead is incapable of death. Per the Reformed understanding of the communication of properties, we are able to say that the _Person_ died; but we must not say that Jesus died according to his divinity.



Spoiler:  Heresies to Avoid Related to the Incarnation



Our Lord was (is) fully God and fully man in an indissoluble union whereby the second subsistence of the Trinity assumed a human nature that cannot be separated, divided, mixed, or confused.

One can best understand this _mystical union_ (hypostatic union, together united in one distinguishable subsistence) by examining what it is not, thus from the process of elimination determine what it must be.

The mystical union of the divine and human natures of Our Lord *is not*:

1. a denial that our Lord was truly God (*Ebionites, Elkasites, Arians*);
2. a dissimilar or different substance (_anomoios_) with the Father (*semi-Arianism*);
3. a denial that our Lord had a genuine human soul (*Apollinarians*);
4. a denial of a distinct subsistence in the Trinity (*Dynamic Monarchianism*);
5. God acting merely in the forms of the Son and Spirit (*Modalistic Monarchianism/Sabellianism/United Pentecostal Church*);
6. a mixture or change when the two natures were united (*Eutychianism/Monophysitism*);
7. two distinct subsistences (often called _persons_) (*Nestorianism*);
8. a denial of the true humanity of Christ (*docetism*);
9. a view that God the Son laid aside all or some of His divine attributes (*kenoticism*);
10. a view that there was a communication of the attributes between the divine and human natures (*Lutheranism's genus maiestaticum, with respect to the Lord's Supper*); and
11. a view that our Lord existed independently as a human before God entered His body (*Adoptionism*).

The Chalcedonian Definition is one of the few statements that all of orthodox Christendom recognizes as the most faithful summary of the teachings of the Scriptures on the matter of the Incarnate Christ. The Chalcedonian Definition was the answer to the many *heterodoxies* identified above during the third century.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 29, 2018)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Absolutely not. This is Eutychianism and is heresy. Jesus is one person in *[you]two[/you]* natures, "inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence."



Right. Jesus' human nature is anhypostatic.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Nov 29, 2018)

It seems that I was under the wrong understanding. I do apologize. I thought the human and divine natures of Jesus were linked and inseparable. This is one of the reasons I would have said images of Jesus are wrong - because we shouldn't make an image of God.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Nov 29, 2018)

If an image becomes a cause for us to worship the Lord, it is a violation of the second commandment. If an image does not, it is a violation of the third commandment.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 29, 2018)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> I thought the human and divine natures of Jesus were linked and inseparable.



They are. They are linked but not identical.


----------



## Taylor (Nov 29, 2018)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> It seems that I was under the wrong understanding. I do apologize. I thought the human and divine natures of Jesus were linked and inseparable. This is one of the reasons I would have said images of Jesus are wrong - because we shouldn't make an image of God.



Oh, no need to apologize! I wasn’t saying anything against you. You did nothing wrong. Seriously. Christology is not an easy thing. If it is any consolation, I have learned that often Trinitarian doctrine is more about what _cannot_ be said about God than why _can_ be said about him. It’s a difficult thing.

And you’re right. We should not make images of God. But the reason is because we by definition _cannot_ depict God. Therefore any attempt to do so is by definition a lie about God.


----------



## earl40 (Nov 29, 2018)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Of course, there are major theologians who, as I read them, disagree with "in any way, shape, or form." Consider Vos here:
> 
> _119. Is there emotion or feeling in God?_
> 
> ...



So far as what Vos is saying you will notice this..."of an inner divine *satisfaction* that accompanies the energetic expression of His will and His power and His understanding." I would read it as God always being blessed, and in no way shape or form of being grieved from within or without. So far as us having emotions in the afterlife, I believe we will have them, though they will not be emotions that cause any suffering, as I believe Vos is pointing out here.


----------



## earl40 (Nov 29, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> And some clarification of the archetypal distinction. It doesn't mean that there is a realm of knowledge forever unknown to us which we can appeal to whenever there is an issue. Its range is quite limited.
> 
> For example, when the ancient fathers said God's essence was unknowable, they were combatting a specific heresy, Eunomianism. Eunomius said that God's essence was Unbegottenness. The Cappadocians' response was twofold:
> 
> ...




This is of course you opinion in that the WCF says God is incomprehensible, and this battle is addressed in this work which is one of the books RC Sproul recommended near his death. https://www.amazon.com/All-That-God..._rd_t=40701&psc=1&refRID=NFZZ4415NKY4X19RCX75

I have not read it yet and from what I heard Dolezal took to task many today who are not teaching the proper, classical, biblical view of God.

If I may add we had two major thinkers here on the PB Rev. Winzer and Professor R Scott Clarke who categorically said we can not know God (in se) and they seemed to know what that meant which I believe we all would benefit to read here with a search.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 29, 2018)

earl40 said:


> This is of course you opinion in that the WCF says God is incomprehensible and this battle is addressed in this work, which interesting is one of the books RC Sproul recommended near his death. https://www.amazon.com/All-That-God..._rd_t=40701&psc=1&refRID=NFZZ4415NKY4X19RCX75
> 
> I have not read it yet and from what I heard Dolezal took to task many today who are not teaching the proper, classical, biblical view of God.
> 
> If I may add we had two major thinkers here on the PB Rev. Winzer and Professor R Scott Clarke who categorically said we can not know God (in se) and they seemed to know what that meant which I believe we all would benefit to read here with a search.



I am not saying I can know God in se. I am saying that the category of "in se" is a metaphysical placeholder. It doesn't do anything. God's essence is simple, so that means you can't block off a realm of his essence and say, "We don't know this about God" while we know the rest about God.

As the ancient fathers state, we don't know what spiritual begetting means. Nor can our knowledge "master" God's essence. 

It doesn't mean there is a realm of essence beyond essence that is "in se." God's essence is simple and doesn't allow that.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Taylor (Nov 29, 2018)

earl40 said:


> So far as what Vos is saying you will notice this..."of an inner divine *satisfaction* that accompanies the energetic expression of His will and His power and His understanding." I would read it as God always being blessed, and in no way shape or form of being grieved from within or without. So far as us having emotions in the afterlife, I believe we will have them, though they will not be emotions that cause any suffering, as I believe Vos is pointing out here.



I realize this. I’m just pointing out that, at the very least, Vos is more nuanced than you have chosen to be. When asked if God has emotion or feeling, you said “not in any way, shape, or form,” yet Vos gave two different senses of answers to the questions, as well as qualifications.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## earl40 (Nov 30, 2018)

Taylor Sexton said:


> I realize this. I’m just pointing out that, at the very least, Vos is more nuanced than you have chosen to be. When asked if God has emotion or feeling, you said “not in any way, shape, or form,” yet Vos gave two different senses of answers to the questions, as well as qualifications.





Calvin cuts to the chase, and I am sure Vos would agree and say that God has no emotion, in any sense, because he (Vos) is not describing emotion in your quote but an "inner divine satisfaction" ...."For because our weakness does not attain to his exalted state, the description of him that is given to us must be accommodated to our capacity so that we may understand it. Now the mode of accommodation is for him to represent himself to us not as he is in himself, but as he seems to us. Although he is beyond all disturbance of mind, yet he testifies that he is angry toward sinners. Therefore _*whenever we hear that God is angered, we ought not to imagine any emotion in him*_, but rather to consider that this expression has been taken from our own human experience; because God, whenever he is exercising judgment, exhibits the appearance of one kindled and angered. So we ought not to understand anything else under the word ‘repentance’ than change of action, because men are wont by changing their action to testify that they are displeased with themselves (emphasis added)."


----------



## Taylor (Dec 1, 2018)

earl40 said:


> Calvin cuts to the chase, and I am sure Vos would agree and say that God has no emotion, in any sense, because he (Vos) is not describing emotion in your quote but an "inner divine satisfaction" ...."For because our weakness does not attain to his exalted state, the description of him that is given to us must be accommodated to our capacity so that we may understand it. Now the mode of accommodation is for him to represent himself to us not as he is in himself, but as he seems to us. Although he is beyond all disturbance of mind, yet he testifies that he is angry toward sinners. Therefore _*whenever we hear that God is angered, we ought not to imagine any emotion in him*_, but rather to consider that this expression has been taken from our own human experience; because God, whenever he is exercising judgment, exhibits the appearance of one kindled and angered. So we ought not to understand anything else under the word ‘repentance’ than change of action, because men are wont by changing their action to testify that they are displeased with themselves (emphasis added)."



The problem, though, is Vos' question and his own answer. He asks, "Is there emotion or feeling in God?" The second half of his answer says, "Certainly...in the sense."

Again, I affirm God's impossibility, but we can’t ignore Vos' clear words here.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## earl40 (Dec 1, 2018)

Taylor Sexton said:


> The problem, though, is Vos' question and his own answer. He asks, "Is there emotion or feeling in God?" The second half of his answer says, "Certainly...in the sense."
> 
> Again, I affirm God's impossibility, but we can’t ignore Vos' clear words here.



I can see how you read such, though the "inner divine satisfaction" is in no way something God stirred up in Himself, in any way shape or form. To derive any satisfaction would be a denial of immutability.

In the Turretin quote you supplied earlier he is describing the physical not spiritual, and I agree many do not understand the defining of "impassibility" and "without passions" correctly.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## lynnie (Dec 1, 2018)

I find myself wondering if God actually has the most perfected and powerful emotions of which ours are but a sinful and dim reflection. Like purest love, and compassion, and wrath and so forth, in some sinless way that transcends our understanding and does not negate the impassibility of his unchanging joy and perfection and rest.

I need to go back and reread STs. It does say in Hebrews that we can draw near to the throne of grace because our great high priest can empathize with us. And that is his risen, glorified, perfection that can empathize with us. Although the dual nature maybe plays into this.


----------



## earl40 (Dec 1, 2018)

lynnie said:


> I find myself wondering if God actually has the most perfected and powerful emotions of which ours are but a sinful and dim reflection. Like purest love, and compassion, and wrath and so forth, in some sinless way that transcends our understanding and does not negate the impassibility of his unchanging joy and perfection and rest.
> 
> I need to go back and reread STs. It does say in Hebrews that we can draw near to the throne of grace because our great high priest can empathize with us. And that is his risen, glorified, perfection that can empathize with us. Although the dual nature maybe plays into this.



You bring up the great point of the human nature of Jesus is why He can empathize with us.


----------



## lynnie (Dec 1, 2018)

What does it mean when Paul calls the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ the Father of compassion and God of all comfort? This isnt the human nature of Jesus but the Father.

Can we say that our compassion, which feels emotional, is more than God's?. No, His is purest and fullest compassion. So how much of it is semantics? Some people talk like God is a sociopath. But his lack of fallen creation humanity is not a lack of love and compassion and wrath. Is it just will and volition, in a way devoid of "feeling"? Or is it such incomprehensible feeling of purest love and holiness that we barely taste it on our best days of loving others?

I dont really know. But I tend to think his impassibility is not zero emotion, but some kind of emotion we are too fallen to barely glimpse. I wish I could articulate it better and emotion is not the right word. But God doesnt fit the definition of a criminal psychopath.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## py3ak (Dec 1, 2018)

Lynnie, the assumption that God is better than we are is always a safe one. When we deny "passions" to God, that is not in any way similar to a criminal psychopath (who, in any case, clearly do have feelings of one kind or another). But that means that it's a strawman to deny that God is a criminal psychopath. That's not the confessional contention.

Let's make a simple analogy of sense perception. Some stock of our knowledge comes through the senses. Now, we deny that God has any of these senses, because we deny that God has a body. Does that mean we are saying God is blind, deaf, and olfactorily challenged? Not a bit of it. Our own experience with our senses tells us that they are limited; we see dogs hearing things we cannot, we can't smell a sound even a little bit, and we're often mistaken in our perceptions. God's knowledge is not like that. The denial of a nose to the Lord is not a limitation of his knowledge -- it's one of the cautious ways in which we can set out the transcendent majety of God.

Blindness is a defect in humanity; so is unfeelingness. But that doesn't mean that we attribute to God more acute physical vision, or more intensely passionate feeling. God is not humanity times 10 to the 28th power. His understanding and willing don't operate under our limitations. God's complete blessedness is something more than our happiness; God's complete knowledge is something more than our perception. But that more is not just "intensified." We deny that God sees with an eye, but we do not question his knowledge; and we deny that God has passions, without undermining the glory of his mercy or the completeness of his blessedness.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------

