# God's sadness for the reprobate



## AThornquist

This is more of a question directed to those who believe that God does not love the reprobate in any way other than forbearance, and/or to those who believe that God does not the desire the salvation of the reprobate:

do you believe that God feels any sadness for the reprobate, either because of their eternal damnation or any temporary suffering here on Earth? Let me give an example: today at work an elderly woman slipped on water and broke her back. If she is reprobate, does God a) not care, b) feel sadness for her suffering, c) enjoy her pain because she is wicked and deserves it, or d) other? 

If God has no love for the reprobate, I don't understand how He could then feel any sadness for her suffering. What are your thoughts on this?


----------



## MW

AThornquist said:


> do you believe that God feels any sadness for the reprobate, either because of their eternal damnation or any temporary suffering here on Earth?



When the Shorter Catechism says man's chief end is to glorify God, does it mean we are to add to His glory or simply that we manifest the glory that is His? Traditionally Christians have said that we are to manifest His glory, and that man cannot add anything to the essential glory and blessedness of the infinite, eternal and unchangeable God. If that is the case, then the failure to glorify God does not detract from His essential glory and blessedness, but is chargeable because it does not manifest that glory which belongs to Him. It should therefore be considered fundamental to belief in the God of the Bible that human goodness does not help Him and human sin does not harm Him.

Further, when speaking of God feeling anything, it should be clear that God is being discussed in human terms to accommodate our weakness, not to give us the impression that God actually has feelings. But if it is at all appropriate to speak of God desiring things, then it should be clear that such desires are the consequence of fulness, not of lack. If God desires to save a man it is because it pleases Him to communicate His fulness to man, not because it meets some psychological need in God. That being the case, it is contradictory to speak of unfulfilled desires in God for the simple reason that such desires do not communicate God's fulness to the creature but can only be construed in terms of a divine need which is left void and frustrated.

The Christian Church of today needs to return to the creed of the Bible -- God blessed for ever, Rom. 9:5; the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords, 1 Tim. 6:15.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

AThornquist said:


> This is more of a question directed to those who believe that God does not love the reprobate in any way other than forbearance, and/or to those who believe that God does not the desire the salvation of the reprobate:
> 
> do you believe that God feels any sadness for the reprobate, either because of their eternal damnation or any temporary suffering here on Earth? Let me give an example: today at work an elderly woman slipped on water and broke her back. If she is reprobate, does God a) not care, b) feel sadness for her suffering, c) enjoy her pain because she is wicked and deserves it, or d) other?
> 
> If God has no love for the reprobate, I don't understand how He could then feel any sadness for her suffering. What are your thoughts on this?



Andrew,

I think your question is important theologically and practically. The simple answer is provided in Genesis 6:6: "The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain." So, yes, God does, according to this text, feel sadness vis-a-vis the sin and misery of the non-elect.

Of course, I'm well aware that some, like Matthew above, are afraid that ascribing to God anything analogous to human emotions threatens his transcendence, sovereignty, and perfection. While I share Matthew's commitment to these theological truths, I do not share his rejection of divine emotivity. And there are Reformed theologians who would demur as well. If you care to read my exposition of Genesis 6:6 as it bears on the question of whether God feels sadness in response to human sin and misery, click on the following links:
*
"There is No Pain, You Are Misreading": Is God "Comfortably Numb"? Part 1* 
Here I cite a number of classical and Reformed theologians who advocate Matthew's approach above. 

*"There is No Pain, You Are Misreading": Is God "Comfortably Numb"? Part 2*
Here I note that a number of Reformed theologians, including Charles Hodge, James Boyce, Benjamin Warfield, J. O. Buswell, Robert Reymond, John Frame, and Michael Horton, affirm that God responds to historical events emotively in a way that analogous (though not identical) to human emotive responses. 

*"There is No Pain, You Are Misreading": Is God "Comfortably Numb"? Part 3*
Here I attempt to provide a synthesis of the biblical data. First, I argue that God's emotional faculties are the _archetype_ of human emotions, which are the _ectype_. Second, I also try to demonstrate that the biblical writers portray God from two perspectives: as the sovereign and unchangeable God above time and space, and also as the covenant Lord who enters into and responds within the matrix of time and space. Third, I offer some comments on the Confession's depiction of God as "without body, parts, or passions" (II, 2). 

Hope it's helpful. 

Your servant,


----------



## MW

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Of course, I'm well aware that some, like Matthew above, are afraid that ascribing to God anything analogous to human emotions threatens his transcendence, sovereignty, and perfection.



I have no difficulty in ascribing to humans an emotivity which is a creaturely analogy of the Creator's commitment to His creation; but this is something altogether distinct from remaking God in man's image and ascribing emotivity to God as something analogous to man's creaturely response to his created environment.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

armourbearer said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, I'm well aware that some, like Matthew above, are afraid that ascribing to God anything analogous to human emotions threatens his transcendence, sovereignty, and perfection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no difficulty in ascribing to humans an emotivity which is a creaturely analogy of the Creator's commitment to His creation; but this is something altogether distinct from remaking God in man's image and ascribing emotivity to God as something analogous to man's creaturely response to his created environment.
Click to expand...


Matthew,

First, if you'll read carefully my response above, you'll note that I describe divine emotivity as the "archetype" (def. "the original pattern or model") and human emotivity as the "echtype" (def. "a reproduction; copy"). Since you're well aware of the meaning of these terms, you mistakenly construe my comments above as essentially "remaking God in man's image." 

Second, defining human emotivity as "a creaturely analogy of the Creator's commitment to His creation" calls, I think, for more explanation--especially in light of Andrew's question. The Bible ascribes to God the emotive responses of joy, anger, love, hatred, sorrow, pleasure, jealousy, and peace. Are all these emotive responses simply synonymous and properly understood under the rather generic (and vague) concept of "the Creator's commitment to His creation"? When an unconverted elderly woman slips on water and breaks her back or an unconverted woman is raped or a doctor performs multiple abortions, are we simply to respond, "The Creator's committed to His creation"? I suspect that you, as a pastor, would say more. What then does Moses mean when he speaks of God's grief over the proliferation of human sin and misery on the earth in Genesis 6:6? 

Your servant,


----------



## MW

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> First, if you'll read carefully my response above, you'll note that I describe divine emotivity as the "archetype"



Saying it doesn't make it so. You start out calling men analogues of God, but in reality you make God an analogue of man, arguing from human emotivity to divine. It is one thing to establish what man is in relation to God, quite another to establish what God is in relation to man.

If I remember correctly, the board admins have already circumscribed how far you can go with this on the Puritanboard.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

armourbearer said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, if you'll read carefully my response above, you'll note that I describe divine emotivity as the "archetype"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saying it doesn't make it so. You start out calling men analogues of God, but in reality you make God an analogue of man, arguing from human emotivity to divine. It is one thing to establish what man is in relation to God, quite another to establish what God is in relation to man.
Click to expand...


Matthew,
"Saying it" does in fact define what I mean. The fact that you claim I don't really mean what I say I mean "doesn't make it so." If you have time, please read all three of my posts before drawing hasty and faulty conclusions. Here is an excerpt from the 3rd post that addresses your caveat:
Traditionally, Bible interpreters have reserved these expressions [i.e., "anthropomorphisms" and "anthropopathisms"] for some language about God. But since all special revelation comes to us via human language, then all special revelation is, in one sense, “anthropomorphic" (See Vern Poythress, _God-Centered Biblical Interpretation_ [Presbyterian & Reformed, 1999], 32-36). Furthermore, since the heavens declare the glory of God (Ps. 19:1; Rom. 1:19-20), then we may speak of general revelation as, in a sense, “anthropopomorphic” or, more generally, “cosmomorphic" (James Jordan, _Through New Eyes: Developing a Biblical View of the World_ [Wipf & Stock, 1988], 19-26; idem, _Creation in Six Days: A Defense of the Traditional Reading of Genesis One_ [Canon Press, 1999], 105-11; John Frame, _The Doctrine of God_ [Presbyterian & Reformed, 2002], 366-68.). Of course, this line of reasoning corresponds nicely with man’s identity as “the image of God” (Gen. 1:26-27). As such, human beings are _analogues of God_. More precisely, we are visible replicas and representatives of the invisible God. Hence, we might even reverse the tables and refer to humans as “theomorphs” and human language as “theomorphic.” (Moisés Silva, _God, Language, and Scripture,_ vol. 3 in _Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation_, ed. Moisés Silva [Zondervan, 1996], 206). Consequently, there is a reciprocal interplay between our knowledge of God and our knowledge of ourselves (and the world around us). This is the note on which Calvin begins his famous _Institutes_:Nearly all the wisdom we possess, that is to say, true and sound wisdom, consists in two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves. But, while joined by many bonds, which one precedes and brings forth the other is not easy to discern. In the first place, no one can look upon himself without immediately turning his thoughts to the contemplation of God, in whom he ‘lives and moves.’ For, quite clearly, the mighty gifts with which we are endowed are hardly from ourselves…. Then, by these benefits shed like dew from heaven upon us, we are led as by rivulets to the spring itself…. Accordingly, the knowledge of ourselves not only arouses us to seek God, but also, as it were, leads us by the hand to find him.​Conversely, writes Calvin, “It is certain that man never achieves a clear knowledge of himself unless he has first looked upon God’s face, and then descends from contemplating him to scrutinize himself" (_Institutes of the Christian Religion,_ trans. Ford Lewis Battles, ed. John T. McNeill [The Westminster Press, 1960], 1:35-36 [Book I, 1.1]; 1:37 [Book I, 1.2]).​I hope these remarks clarify my position. 



> If I remember correctly, the board admins have already circumscribed how far you can go with this on the Puritanboard.



I explained my view of divine emotivity to the administrators and, as I recall, they judged them to be consistent with Reformed orthodoxy. My view is consistent with the perspectives of Charles Hodge, B. B. Warfield, Robert Reymond, and Michael Horton--theologians that are, I believe, respected on this board. If there's something I said in my response to Andrew, in the posts for which I gave links, or in my responses to you that is unorthodox or discourteous, I am willing to be corrected. 

Sincerely,


----------



## AThornquist

Thank you for the input, guys. And thank you for the links, Dr. Gonzales; I will check them out.


----------



## MW

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> I hope these remarks clarify my position.



Not really, because you stop short of the section where you proceed to correct Calvin. Your "Two logical inconsistencies" in Calvin’s reasoning are nothing more than rejections of the traditional understanding of anthropomorphism. You accomplish this by making all Scripture anthropomorphic and thereby nullify the specific category of anthropomorphism in which God is expressly said to interact as if He were a man. It is clear as day that you are not arguing for seeing man as something as a result of being an analogue of God, but instead are asserting that God is something as a result of being an analogue of man. You are looking behind the accommodated revelation of Scripture into the secret things of God. You are misusing the archetype-ectype language of the traditional theology, and by so doing are failing in your attempt to pass off your pantheistic views as somehow consistent with reformed theology.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

armourbearer said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope these remarks clarify my position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is clear as day that you are not arguing for seeing man as something as a result of being an analogue of God, but instead are asserting that God is something as a result of being an analogue of man. You are looking behind the accommodated revelation of Scripture into the secret things of God. You are misusing the archetype-ectype language of the traditional theology, and by so doing are failing in your attempt to pass off your pantheistic views as somehow consistent with reformed theology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Brother,
> 
> I believe your accusing me of "pantheistic views" is quite unfounded and unfair as is your insistence that despite all I say to the contrary, I really believe humans are the archetype and God is the echtype. I could accuse you of espousing and promoting Greek philosophical thought instead of biblical theology. But I won't. I don't believe you're consciously doing that. I believe that you're attempting to be true to Scripture, as am I. Therefore, let's avoid _ad hominem_ arguments.
> 
> Let the following be clear: first, *I affirm God's self-sufficiency and independence*. He is neither coterminous nor identical with creation. I reject Deism, Pantheism, Panentheism, Process Theology, and Open Theism as heresies.
> 
> Second, _*I affirm God's absolute sovereignty.*_ He is the ultimate cause behind every event including his own emotive responses within the matrix of human history. In that sense, _He is not passive or passible._
> 
> Third, _*I affirm that God's essential nature and moral attributes are unchangeable*_. That is, "God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in his being, power, wisdom, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth." So God never grows more or less powerful, wise, holy, just, good, or trustworthy.
> 
> Fourth, _*I do believe that human emotions are analogues (i.e., copies) of divine emotivity.*_ As such, human emotivity constitutes a part of general revelation which reveals to us analogically truth about God. Consider the words of the Psalmist: "As a father shows compassion to his children, so the LORD shows compassion to those who fear him" (Psa. 103:13). I doubt you would accuse the Psalmist of attempting to "remake the Creator after man's image" simply because he likens God's compassion to that of a human father for his children. In reality, you and I both affirm the analogical nature of human emotions and reject any proposal that they are univocal with divine emotivity. Where we differ has to do with the ways in which and degree to which divine and human emotions correspond. Admittedly, I believe that you (and Calvin) read too much discontinuity and, perhaps unwittingly, undermine any genuine correspondence. The term "analogy," after all, does mean "similarity or comparability." God's emotions are not sinful or physiological in nature. Nor are they ever beyond his control or determination. Indeed, he has decreed every one of his _inward_ and _outward_ responses to events in creation. In that sense, there is discontinuity. But God's emotions of joy, sorrow, love, hatred, pleasure, anger, and jealousy are, like human emotions, _inward (i.e., spiritual or psychological) responses to events_. Infinitely more complex? Yes! But genuine emotive responses with which _we can identify_ nonetheless. Otherwise, all "anthropopathisms" would be pointless.
> 
> Fifth, I agree with Benjamin Warfield's perspective on divine emotivity:We have a God who is capable of self-sacrifice for us…. Now herein is a wonderful thing. Men tell us that God is, by very necessity of His own nature, incapable of passion, incapable of being moved by inducement from without; that he dwells in holy calm and unchangeable blessedness, untouched by human sufferings or human sorrows for ever,–haunting
> 
> 
> 
> _The lucid interspace of world and world,
> Where never creeps a cloud, nor moves a wind,
> Nor ever falls the least white star of snow,
> Nor ever lowest roll of thunder moans,
> Nor sound of human sorrow mounts to mar
> His sacred, everlasting calm._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let us bless God that it is not true. God can feel; God does love. We have Scriptural warrant for believing, as it has been perhaps somewhat inadequately but not misleadingly phrased, that moral heroism has a place within the sphere of the divine nature: we have Scriptural warrant for believing that, like the hero of Zurich, God has reached out loving arms and gathered to his own bosom that forest of spears which otherwise had pierced ours. But is not this gross anthropomorphism? We are careless of names: it is the truth of God. And we decline to yield up the God of the Bible and the God of our hearts to any philosophical abstraction. We have and we must have an ethical God; a God whom we can love, in whom we can trust (“Imitating the Incarnation,” in _The Person and Work of Christ_ [Presbyterian and Reformed, 1950], 570-71.).​One might be tempted to take Warfield's statement here out of context and identify him as the modern precursor to Process Theology or Open Theism. That, however, would be a serious mistake. We know from his other writings and sermons that he was unreservedly committed to the doctrines of God's transcendence, sovereignty, and immutability. I would humbly request that you give me the benefit of the doubt instead of insinuating on this public forum that I'm some kind of closet pantheist.
> 
> 
> In Christ,
Click to expand...


----------



## Neogillist

God cannot have any emotions, affections or passions in regard to the things that happen to us on earth, because He is infinite eternal and unchangeable. God not only foreknows all things that will happen, but to him they are as if they have already happened, and so implying that God actually feels anything about those events, pain or suffering, past or future, is to suggest that he is bound to be moved by His own eternal decrees and choices even before they happen, which is a contradiction. In Exodus we read God predicting how He will be angry with the Israelites for their future unfaithfulness and sin. Whenever such language is used, we are to understanding it as an objective knowledge of what man feels, or what a man would feel if taking on God's cause in such and such a circumstance. Thus, we could say that God knows what are pains feel like because he is all powerful and can obviously place Himself in our shoes, but to say that he experiences anything in time like we do such as anger, joy, suffering, love, etc, is absurd. Besides, it is in the nature of the Hebrew language to use much anthropomorphism when describing the nature of God, just as it uses much earthly language in describing spiritual things, thus any attempt to use the Old Testament to support a view that God does indeed feel some sort of "pain" for the reprobate that is properly "His" or whatever is futile.


----------



## Thomas2007

Dear Reverand Winzer,

Some of us, me in particular, aren't as well read in regards to these categories of theological thought. Can you explain a little more how your view differs from Dr. Gonzales, in particular how his conclusions are "nothing more than rejections of the traditional understanding of anthropomorphism."

I understand some of your statements, I think I do anyway, but I'm not quite catching on. How or what, in particular, is the traditional view vs what he is saying?

Thanks,

Thomas



armourbearer said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope these remarks clarify my position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really, because you stop short of the section where you proceed to correct Calvin. Your "Two logical inconsistencies" in Calvin’s reasoning are nothing more than rejections of the traditional understanding of anthropomorphism. You accomplish this by making all Scripture anthropomorphic and thereby nullify the specific category of anthropomorphism in which God is expressly said to interact as if He were a man. It is clear as day that you are not arguing for seeing man as something as a result of being an analogue of God, but instead are asserting that God is something as a result of being an analogue of man. You are looking behind the accommodated revelation of Scripture into the secret things of God. You are misusing the archetype-ectype language of the traditional theology, and by so doing are failing in your attempt to pass off your pantheistic views as somehow consistent with reformed theology.
Click to expand...


----------



## Pergamum

If the angels in heaven rejoice over one saved soul, what do they do with the damned?

What does God do?


----------



## Denton Elliott

I think the problem lies with man equating our emotions in a sinful state to be the same as God's in a perfect state.

God definitely has emotions, but they are perfect and not tainted by sin as ours are. So for example, "God is jealous" and this is NOTHING likened to man's sinful jealousy. In fact since God is perfect, He must be jealous for His own glory as only He is worthy.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Neogillist said:


> God cannot have any emotions, affections or passions in regard to the things that happen to us on earth, because He is infinite eternal and unchangeable. God not only foreknows all things that will happen, but to him they are as if they have already happened, and so implying that God actually feels anything about those events, pain or suffering is to suggest that he is bound to be moved by His own decrees and choices, which is a contradiction.



Dear Jean-David,

Thanks for your input. I appreciate your desire to maintain God's eternity, immutability, foreknowledge, and omniscience. I affirm these truths without hesitation. I do not, however, understand your assertion that for God to be bound by his own decrees and choices is "a contradiction." If God determined to send his Son into the world to be a propitiation for our sins, hasn't he freely "bound himself" to carry out that redemptive work in time and space? Are you suggesting that God may act contrary to his own decrees? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point, but it would be helpful if you could clarify. 



> It is in the nature of the Hebrew language to use much anthropomorphism when describing the nature of God, just as it uses much earthly language in describing spiritual things, thus any attempt to use the Old Testament to support a view that God does indeed feel pain for the reprobate or whatever is futile.



I teach both biblical Hebrew and Greek. I can assure you that there is nothing intrinsic to the Hebrew language that renders the use of "anthropomorphisms" more necessary than any other language (see James Barr, _The Sematics of Biblical Language_, pp. 8-20; Donald Carson, _Exegetical Fallacies_, pp. 44-45). Not surprisingly, the NT writers ascribe emotivity to God using Greek. In point of fact, the Bible uses no other language but _human language_ to describe God. Human language, being a copy of divine language, is an adequate vehicle to teach us who God is and what He requires of us (see Moises Silva, _God, Language, and Scripture_, vol. 3 in _Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation_, 205-17). 

It might be helpful to this discussion if you could explain what the biblical writers actually meant when describing God as grieved and pained in his heart in light of the spread of human sin and misery? What does it mean when the Psalmist affirms that God pities or is compassionate towards those who fear him as a father pities his children? What does Jesus mean when he assures his disciples, who were once children of wrath, that they are now the objects of the Father's love because they love Jesus and keep his commandments? Are we to empty all these expressions of any genuine feeling or pathos? Is God a-pathetic? Does he simply punish evil-doers and reward the righteous without any feeling whatsoever? 

Gratefully yours,

-----Added 2/17/2009 at 12:07:01 EST-----



Denton Elliott said:


> I think the problem lies with man equating our emotions in a sinful state to be the same as God's in a perfect state.
> 
> God definitely has emotions, but they are perfect and not tainted by sin as ours are. So for example, "God is jealous" and this is NOTHING likened to man's sinful jealousy. In fact since God is perfect, He must be jealous for His own glory as only He is worthy.



Good point, Denton. I wholeheartedly agree. We must be careful to disassociate any sinful characteristics of human emotions from God. God's feelings are unchangeably consistent with his holy, wise, just, good, and trustworthy nature. 

Your servant,

-----Added 2/17/2009 at 12:21:42 EST-----



Pergamum said:


> If the angels in heaven rejoice over one saved soul, what do they do with the damned?
> 
> What does God do?



Hey Perg,

Good questions. Of course, there is debate whether the "rejoicing in the presence of the angels" over one sinner who repents (Luke 15) is referring to God's emotive response or that of the angels. Whatever the case, there are other texts which ascribe emotive responses to angelic beings (see Job 38:7; Pss. 103:20; 148:2; Rev. 5:11-14). This demonstrates that emotions are not essentially physiological but psychological. Hence, the fact that God is pure "Spirit" does not preclude the attribution of genuine emotivity to him. 

So how do the angels and/or God feel about the damned? If you're referring to the non-elect this side of eternal punishment, then I'd say he feels such emotions as sadness, grief, anger, and jealousy. I would also affirm that God, at one level, genuinely desires that they turn from their sins (and punishment) and live (Deut. 5:29; Isa. 45:22; Ezek. 33:11; Luke 13:34; John 5:34). On the other side of eternal punishment, the righteous shall praise God for his vengeance and justice (Rev. 19:1ff.). I think we can assume that God will feel a sense of satisfaction in that his justice will have been satisfied and his glory vindicated (Rom. 9:22, 23; 11:33-36). 

Your servant,


----------



## MW

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> I could accuse you of espousing and promoting Greek philosophical thought instead of biblical theology. But I won't.



But you do; your articles make this precise claim:



> one may find analogous reasoning among some Greek philosophers.



You make this claim but then take offence at seeing the heathen origins of your own thinking exposed.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Let the following be clear: first, *I affirm God's self-sufficiency and independence*. He is neither coterminous nor identical with creation. I reject Deism, Pantheism, Panentheism, Process Theology, and Open Theism as heresies.



If God is self-sufficient and independent then His blessedness in no sense depends upon or is affected by the creation He has made. The fact that your teaching on divine emotivity makes His blessedness to depend upon and be affected by the creation means that you deny in reality what you maintain in words.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Second, _*I affirm God's absolute sovereignty.*_ He is the ultimate cause behind every event including his own emotive responses within the matrix of human history. In that sense, _He is not passive or passible._



It is clear that you allow God to be the Administrator, but a Sovereign is one for Whom everything exists. Your theory creates a God who makes Himself unhappy because of the things He permits to happen.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Third, _*I affirm that God's essential nature and moral attributes are unchangeable*_. That is, "God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in his being, power, wisdom, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth." So God never grows more or less powerful, wise, holy, just, good, or trustworthy.



More sound, orthodox terminology, which cannot stand side by side with your belief in divine emotivity. This is clear from your insistence that biblical language representing God as repenting must be taken literally. A God Who feels in conflict with His own purpose is mutable.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Fourth, _*I do believe that human emotions are analogues (i.e., copies) of divine emotivity.*_



You keep claiming this, but your method of establishing divine emotivity is to argue from what is true of humans to what is true of God. It is at this point that your pantheism betrays itself, because it presupposes God is related to and acts towards the creation in the same way that humans do.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Fifth, I agree with Benjamin Warfield's perspective on divine emotivity:



And what is the underlying principle this perspective rejects?



> incapable of being moved by inducement from without



Clearly Dr. Warfield was not being consistent with his reformed theology when he made this rhetorical flourish. The plan of salvation, from beginning to end, was according to the good purpose of God's will. Nothing could be more inconsistent with this basic principle of the reformed faith than to maintain that Christ was induced to become man by seeing the pitiful condition of lost men. The Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 8, sections 1 and 2, surely places the subject in its supreme biblical light, when it speaks of Christ being the Mediator in God's eternal purpose and assuming human nature in the fulness of time to redeem that people which was given to Him from all eternity. This was all executed according to God's determinate counsel, not because of any external inducement.


----------



## MW

Thomas2007 said:


> Some of us, me in particular, aren't as well read in regards to these categories of theological thought. Can you explain a little more how your view differs from Dr. Gonzales, in particular how his conclusions are "nothing more than rejections of the traditional understanding of anthropomorphism."



Dear brother,

His articles state that the reformed tradition was wrong to explain the biblical description of God repenting and such like things as representing God speaking after the manner of men, but demands such language be taken to literally mean that God actually feels sadness over sin. If this method of interpretation is carried out consistently, then we will not only have a human picture of God, and all distinction between Him and the creation eradicated, but it will even be a very poor picture of human life, because the Bible depicts God as learning, forgetting, remembering, feeling the pain of defeat, frustration, laughing at stupidity, etc., etc. Such language is understandable from the viewpoint that God has humbled Himself to act in accord with the terms of His covenant with man, but it is the height of folly to apply it to the actual Being of God as if He can literally be described and circumscribed by such passions.


----------



## CDM

armourbearer said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could accuse you of espousing and promoting Greek philosophical thought instead of biblical theology. But I won't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you do; your articles make this precise claim:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> one may find analogous reasoning among some Greek philosophers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You make this claim but then take offence at seeing the heathen origins of your own thinking exposed.
> 
> 
> 
> If God is self-sufficient and independent then His blessedness in no sense depends upon or is affected by the creation He has made. The fact that your teaching on divine emotivity makes His blessedness to depend upon and be affected by the creation means that you deny in reality what you maintain in words.
> 
> 
> 
> It is clear that you allow God to be the Administrator, but a Sovereign is one for Whom everything exists. Your theory creates a God who makes Himself unhappy because of the things He permits to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> More sound, orthodox terminology, which cannot stand side by side with your belief in divine emotivity. This is clear from your insistence that biblical language representing God as repenting must be taken literally. A God Who feels in conflict with His own purpose is mutable.
> 
> 
> 
> You keep claiming this, but your method of establishing divine emotivity is to argue from what is true of humans to what is true of God. It is at this point that your pantheism betrays itself, because it presupposes God is related to and acts towards the creation in the same way that humans do.
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fifth, I agree with Benjamin Warfield's perspective on divine emotivity:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what is the underlying principle this perspective rejects?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> incapable of being moved by inducement from without
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly Dr. Warfield was not being consistent with his reformed theology when he made this rhetorical flourish. The plan of salvation, from beginning to end, was according to the good purpose of God's will. Nothing could be more inconsistent with this basic principle of the reformed faith than to maintain that Christ was induced to become man by seeing the pitiful condition of lost men. The Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 8, sections 1 and 2, surely places the subject in its supreme biblical light, when it speaks of Christ being the Mediator in God's eternal purpose and assuming human nature in the fulness of time to redeem that people which was given to Him from all eternity. This was all executed according to God's determinate counsel, not because of any external inducement.
Click to expand...


Brother Matthew,

You say things in a few short paragraphs what takes me a term paper for a class. May the Lord continue to bless you and increase your tribe.

Thank you.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Rev. Winzer,

My question is how should we understand the passages that say that God grieves and the passage that we are not to grieve the Holy Ghost? Maybe if we define how to understand these then we can move on.


----------



## MW

PuritanCovenanter said:


> My question is how should we understand the passages that say that God grieves and the passage that we are not to grieve the Holy Ghost? Maybe if we define how to understand these then we can move on.



That God grieves must be understood as a part of the same series of events which speaks of God calling out to Adam and asking him where he is and what he has done; of coming to Cain and asking him where his brother is; of observing the wickedness of man on earth; of smelling the sweet savour of Noah's sacrifice; of remembering His covenant; of coming down to see what the people of Babel were doing, etc. It is a highly dramatised way of showing God as taking part in the history being told as one of the characters in it, but it in no sense requires a literal understanding as if it describes the way God is and acts.

Grieving the Holy Spirit must be understood in the context of the passage which refers to maintaining the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. The grief is the pain caused to others members of the body of Christ and to the body as a whole. Any application made to the Person of the Holy Spirit Himself must be conscious of the divine-human distinction.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

armourbearer said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> My question is how should we understand the passages that say that God grieves and the passage that we are not to grieve the Holy Ghost? Maybe if we define how to understand these then we can move on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That God grieves must be understood as a part of the same series of events which speaks of God calling out to Adam and asking him where he is and what he has done; of coming to Cain and asking him where his brother is; of observing the wickedness of man on earth; of smelling the sweet savour of Noah's sacrifice; of remembering His covenant; of coming down to see what the people of Babel were doing, etc. It is a highly dramatised way of showing God as taking part in the history being told as one of the characters in it, but it in no sense requires a literal understanding as if it describes the way God is and acts.
> 
> Grieving the Holy Spirit must be understood in the context of the passage which refers to maintaining the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. The grief is the pain caused to others members of the body of Christ and to the body as a whole. Any application made to the Person of the Holy Spirit Himself must be conscious of the divine-human distinction.
Click to expand...


Just to prod you on a bit more here... please excuse my questioning as it may be pushing for something. Did St. Paul actually hear words that came from Christ when he was struck down. I mention this because of your implication that God's calling out to Adam in the Garden may not be a literal understanding. BTW, I understand that God doesn't need to come down and look. He is omnipresent. But yet this language is used to show God's transcendence and mercy in coming down to man. 

Another question... at the same time in relation to the grieving and hating of sin, can it be possible that God is not moved by these emotions as we are but that he does have them? I know you kinda explained it to us a bit above. But can you share in my simple language how God does relate to us in wrath and or blessing without being emotionally involved but yet having his emotional state identified in the scriptures. Why would he do this if this wasn't true?

BTW, I am not trying to defend Dr. Gonzales. And I am not as up on this topic as you and others are. *I find it objectionable that God has emotions as man does or that man has them as God does.* And that is the crux of this line of questioning. I don't believe this to be true at all. I understand this because of my understanding of the transcendence of God while also knowing of his immanence, also because of the relationship between incomprehensibility and knowability. God is not as we are. And while we may be image bearers we are not as God is.


----------



## SolaScriptura

So, Reverend Winzer, as someone who has read the posts but not taken part in the discussion, would it be fair to say - as some I know are saying - that your take on what constitutes consistent or historic or biblically faithful Reformed theology is that God is essentially an impersonal "personal" being? And that your understanding of WCF 2.1 -particularly the language about God being without passions and being immutable - requires us to think of God in a way that thinks of him as being more akin to a computer running a program than as a Someone? Further, just so that I can understand, you seem to be arguing - though I could be wrong and so I want you to clarify - that the athropormorphic language of Scripture (about God loving, grieving, hating, etc) is really there for our amusement because the scriptural reference doesn't actually refer to any real "thing" about God, even though it says it does? I understand the concept that language about God is somewhat analogous and that it is anthropormorhic, but to say that "God grieves" or "God loves" or "God hates" really means _nothing_ real about God sort of seems to this poor paratrooper to seem like Scripture is lying. 
Please help me out so I can understand what you're saying about my God and my Scriptures, because as of right now, if I had to accept the testimony of BB Warfield or Matthew Winzer... well...


----------



## MW

Very good questions, Randy.

No doubt Paul did hear the words of Christ and Adam did hear the voice of God. What this must have sounded like or how it was accomplished will probably remain a mystery until we hear it for ourselves in heaven. You have explained God's "coming down" in terms of His omnipresence, and that is the key to understanding the language properly. I think many modern theologians are trying to see this language as "another side" of God, whereas you have correctly seen it as consistent with the traditional understanding of Godhood.

On the subject of wrath and blessing, it should be at this point that we see the covenantal language of Scripture at its clearest. Given the express sanctions of the covenant in terms of blessing and curse, the language of wrath and pleasure is best conceived in the context of God acting His part in the temporal administration of the covenant. There is no need to understand such language as describing internal motions within God Himself.


----------



## MW

SolaScriptura said:


> sort of seems to this poor paratrooper to seem like Scripture is lying.



Given that your questions take the high moral ground it is clear that you don't think of yourself merely as a poor paratrooper, and that there must be a great deal of theological reasoning underlying your understanding of the Scripture in order to derive the feeling that I am trying to make Scripture say something other than what it says. When you present yourself honestly and sincerely, in accord with what you really believe, I will undertake to answer your questions.


----------



## Dearly Bought

A couple of questions from another observer trying to understand:

Dr. Gonzales,

Are you affirming that God is conditioned in his eternal nature or will by that which he has created?

Rev. Winzer,
Would you identify love as an emotion? Joy? Wrath? Sorrow? Pleasure? Jealousy? Peace?
If there are differences, how would you describe them (particularly in reference to God)?


Thank you.


----------



## MW

Dearly Bought said:


> Would you identify love as an emotion? Joy? Wrath? Sorrow? Pleasure? Jealousy? Peace?
> If there are differences, how would you describe them (particularly in reference to God)?



One of the reasons I like those old versions which contain words like "charity" is because they bring out the volitional quality of the virtue of love rather than leave the impression that it is "responsive." If there is anything that Jesus taught His disciples about the true nature of love it is that it acts rather than reacts. Let a man do to you whatever he pleases, love continues to act according to its own convinced principles.

Joy is something we are commanded to do, not something which we feel when the mood is right.

Wrath is the choice to oppose and destroy that which is contrary to the principles of justice.

Pleasure is a state of being which results when a person has rationally evaluated what is good and actively pursues it.

Jealousy is also an act of the will, which refers to God's readiness to avenge His honour when those who have bound themselves to Him give themselves to another.

Peace is the state of being reconciled with another.

All these traits can be understood volitionally or emotively. It is the interpreter who reads emotive language into them.


----------



## Michael Doyle

I just want to thank Reverend Winzer and Dr Gonzalez for giving me much to consider. Your insights are extraordinarily valueable to me. I can add nothing intelligent to the argument but know I do intend to dig deeper into it.

Blessings


----------



## SolaScriptura

armourbearer said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> sort of seems to this poor paratrooper to seem like Scripture is lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given that your questions take the high moral ground it is clear that you don't think of yourself merely as a poor paratrooper, and that there must be a great deal of theological reasoning underlying your understanding of the Scripture in order to derive the feeling that I am trying to make Scripture say something other than what it says. When you present yourself honestly and sincerely, in accord with what you really believe, I will undertake to answer your questions.
Click to expand...


So... you take my descriptor (I was being silly... trying to imply that perhaps I'd bumped my head one too many times...) and you essentially call me a liar. 

Nice dodge.


----------



## MW

SolaScriptura said:


> So... you take my descriptor (I was being silly... trying to imply that perhaps I'd bumped my head one too many times...) and you essentially call me a liar.
> 
> Nice dodge.



There's no accusing and no dodging; I'm more than willing to answer your questions once your well-studied theological conviction has been brought out into the open rather than disguised under the working-class man's every day concerns. It doesn't take a genius to see that your "descriptor" was a clever way of disguising your view that I am denying the obvious. I only ask that you present your case with reason rather than instinct.

I find the Westminster Confession's doctrine of God to be very personal, but it is only because I accept its basic starting point that all relations between God and men are possible because of a "voluntary condescension" on God's part. Any temporal relation which does not start at this point is not merely "personal," but "interpersonal." For God to personally be involved in His creation only requires that His creation is blessed in Him; but for God to be interpersonally involved in His creation entails that God Himself is blessed by it. To deny interpersonal relationship does not equate to maintaining impersonal relationship.


----------



## westerfunk

"pantheistic views?" haha ... wow

Rev. Winzer, 

With all due respect, I still have yet to see you defend your firmly convicted assertions of something that is quite speculative with any Scripture. Until that happens, I have to assume, along with Dr. Gonzalez, that you are importing some form of Greek philosophical thought into your responses of the nature of God, which if you want to get technical, is idolatry, IF true. The very fact of the matter is Scripture itself does use emotive language frequently (as cited by Dr. Gonzalez), even when speaking of those He destroys and damns. I'm not saying this is "proof" that God feels like we do. Just that it's there and must be dealt with. God Himself, in Christ, became man, like us in every way, the exact representation of His nature, tempted in every way, and yet without sin (Hebrews 2:17, 4:15). Jesus, the God-man, fully God, fully man, the second Person of the Trinity, in one Person, _wept_ over Jerusalem and her hardness of heart (Luke 19:41), in essence, the reprobate. Hebrews 1:3 says, "He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature." And He _wept_. He was _grieved_. And it's not as if He was separate from the Father or the Holy Spirit in this. Remember, one God, three Persons. One Christ, fully man, fully God.

Then someone might say, "Well, that was Jesus as a man." And my response is, "And you would divide Him up into two separate beings?" I thought that issue was settled in the early church in a few major creeds? Just a few thoughts, and I could be wrong.


----------



## Honor

ok so wait... I have almost no clue whats being said 
I liked Bens post #22 because that was exactly what I wanted to ask... but then you (armourbearer) didn't answer his question... so I'm stuck
so I will ask.
Are you saying that you believe that God does not have emotions?(anger, joy,love,sadness etc.)


----------



## KMK

westerfunk said:


> Rev. Winzer,
> 
> With all due respect, I still have yet to see you defend your firmly convicted assertions of something that is quite speculative with any Scripture.



Ummmm...

Have you read all of the posts? Including #20?


----------



## moral necessity

Well....it's a matter of perspective. Brother Winzer is emphasizing that God has always been, and always will be, alone sufficient and dependent upon nothing throughout all eternity......for, He is the Everlasting God, who alone is Independent of all created beings for all of time. He finds all of his needs met and has total and complete joy within Himself alone! And, he diminishes Himself not one degree of joy at all by the loss of one wicked soul, or by the scratch upon a single knee of one 90 year old woman. And so, the bottom line is.........he is not "responsive" to anything that life brings before him. He is 100% emotional to the extremity of his faculty of emotion, but only within the proper bounds of it's application within his glory.


----------



## MW

westerfunk said:


> I still have yet to see you defend your firmly convicted assertions of something that is quite speculative with any Scripture.



My firmly convicted assertions are based on the understanding that God is what reformed theology claims Him to be. I would not have thought such an understanding required detailed exegesis to support it on this board, where the confessional position is assumed correct. If God is unchangeable, then He doesn't have changing feelings. He does not repent in terms of having an inward change of mind. If God is eternally blessed then He does not lack. If He did lack then we could not say, "The Lord is my Shepherd, I shall not want." Such a confession takes for granted that God possesses everything which can make a human blessed, and therefore cannot stand in need of any human to make Him blessed. If God is all powerful then He is not limited in terms of what He can do. If God is all wise then He is never at a loss to know what to do. Given this understanding, it is quite clear that any Scripture which speaks of God repenting or lacking ability, wisdom, glory, or blessedness, quite obviously is figurative language and ought not to be understood in a literal way.


----------



## MW

Honor said:


> Are you saying that you believe that God does not have emotions?(anger, joy,love,sadness etc.)



What these words describe when used in reference to God are not emotions, but volitions. God worketh all things according to the counsel of His own will, Eph. 1:11.


----------



## MW

westerfunk said:


> Then someone might say, "Well, that was Jesus as a man." And my response is, "And you would divide Him up into two separate beings?" I thought that issue was settled in the early church in a few major creeds? Just a few thoughts, and I could be wrong.



Yes, the early creeds settled that by saying that Jesus is fully God and fully man, two entire natures in one Person. What you describe as the emotion of Jesus was used to to prove that Jesus is fully man.


----------



## Prufrock

westerfunk said:


> Then someone might say, "Well, that was Jesus as a man." And my response is, "And you would divide Him up into two separate beings?" I thought that issue was settled in the early church in a few major creeds? Just a few thoughts, and I could be wrong.



Indeed, the early church did settle the issue.

We are not dividing the person of Christ into two separate beings: but the distinct natures are recognized, and not confused; and while the distinct attributes of each nature are said to be communicated to, or held by the common _Person_, they are not communicated to the separate natures. Thus, we can say that the Person of Christ died (in whom are two natures): dying, however, is an attribute of the human nature, and not the divine. 

Thus, we can freely say that the person of Christ exhibited certain emotions; but this does not have to be (nor, would I say, should be or even can be) attributed to the divine nature.

For an exegetical case of this, see Calvin's comments on John 11:35, where an exhibition can be found of the relation of emotions to the person of Christ.

-----Added 2/18/2009 at 02:08:05 EST-----

Oops. Disregard my last post, and see Matthew Winzer's much more concise version in the previous post.


----------



## MW

Prufrock said:


> For an exegetical case of this, see Calvin's comments on John 11:35, where an exhibition can be found of the relation of emotions to the person of Christ.



Paul, very good suggestion.


----------



## westerfunk

KMK said:


> westerfunk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rev. Winzer,
> 
> With all due respect, I still have yet to see you defend your firmly convicted assertions of something that is quite speculative with any Scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummmm...
> 
> Have you read all of the posts? Including #20?
Click to expand...


Thanks, that one slipped past me ...

-----Added 2/18/2009 at 09:37:42 EST-----

Paul and Matt,

Thank you for your comments.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

The issues here are ramifications of the doctrine of impassibility. Here are a couple of quotes from J. I. Packer which I found helpful. 



> This means, not that God is impassive and unfeeling (a frequent misunderstanding), but that no created beings can inflict pain, suffering and distress on him at their own will. In so far as God enters into suffering and grief (which Scripture's many anthropopathisms, plus the fact of the cross, show that he does), it is by his own deliberate decision; he is never his creatures' hapless victim. The Christian mainstream has construed impassibility as meaning not that God is a stranger to joy and delight, but rather that his joy is permanent, clouded by no involuntary pain. [J. I. Packer, "God," in Sinclair Ferguson and David Wright, eds., _New Dictionary of Theology_ (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1998), 277].





> [Impassibility is] not impassivity, unconcern, and impersonal detachment in face of the creation; not insensitivity and indifference to the distresses of a fallen world; not inability or unwillingness to empathize with human pain and grief; but simply that God's experiences do not come upon him as ours come upon us, for his are foreknown, willed and chosen by himself, and are not involuntary surprises forced on him from outside, apart from his own decision, in the way that ours regularly are. [“Theism for Our Time," in Peter T. O'Brien and David G. Peterson, _God Who Is Rich in Mercy _(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986), 16].


----------



## Neogillist

Pergamum said:


> If the angels in heaven rejoice over one saved soul, what do they do with the damned?
> 
> What does God do?



God, the church and the angels all rejoice over the damnation of the wicked as is clearly taught in Revelation and as was expounded by Jonathan Edwards himself.

Revelation 18:19; And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate. 

20Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her. 

Although it would be inappropriate for us to rejoice in the damnation of the wicked right now, Jonathan Edwards points out that when Christ returns, we will be transformed with incorruptible bodies and we will be able to see all the wickedness of the reprobate just as God sees it and abhors it. We will no longer be required to love the wicked but will be commanded by God to hate them just as God hates them, and to rejoice forever in their eternal torments as God's glorious justice is finally revealed.


----------



## tdowns

*Great read.*

Thanks for the great read, really helps to grasp reformed doctrines when they are expressed as clearly as they are here.

Since God condescends to describe Himself in human emotional terms, for the Christian, who is not wrapping his or her mind around the theological constructs of the great minds of the church, would it be wrong, to relate to God, as He has presented himself?

Bottom line, if God says He mourns the wounds of His creation, then why not describe it that way to the wounded and leave it at that?

I'm not saying the discussion should not be had, it should be, and I love it, but, as we take it to the mainstream?

Another thought,

To me it seems, one side fears we make God a changing God, if we don't rightly explain the emotional terms He uses to describe himself.

The other, fears, explaining them away, we make God an impersonal God.

Just trying to wrap the concepts to fit this lay-person's mind.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

God is outside of time and unchanging in his essence and decree. I think it is important to recognize that God's empathy with humankind (to whatever extent or degree) is an act of his will, consistent with his nature, and not a _reaction_ to anything external to his triune self -- i.e. not an emotional "response" welling up in God as a result of our actions, circumstances, or difficulties.

This seems consistent with the Packer quotes I gave above and with Matthew Winzer's emphasis on God's empathy being volitional rather than emotional (in the sense we experience it).

God doesn't "will" based on his emotions, but wills his emotion (consistent with his nature). God has set his love on his elect in electing them, and he has determined that his own eternal bliss will enjoy the salvation of the elect and the eternal destruction of the reprobate. God has no misgivings, intrepidations, regrets, or unfulfilled desires. Nor, may I boldly assert, does he have one desire overiding another to effect his decree.


----------



## tdowns

*I agree...*



Gomarus said:


> God is outside of time and unchanging in his essence and decree. I think it is important to recognize that God's empathy with humankind (to whatever extent or degree) is an act of his will, consistent with his nature, and not a _reaction_ to anything external to his triune self -- i.e. not an emotional "response" welling up in God as a result of our actions, circumstances, or difficulties.
> 
> This seems consistent with the Packer quotes I gave above and with Matthew Winzer's emphasis on God's empathy being volitional rather than emotional (in the sense we experience it).
> 
> God doesn't "will" based on his emotions, but wills his emotion (consistent with his nature).



I agree, and the way I've been reading it, so would Dr. Gonzalez?


----------



## a mere housewife

tdowns said:


> Thanks for the great read, really helps to grasp reformed doctrines when they are expressed as clearly as they are here.
> 
> Since God condescends to describe Himself in human emotional terms, for the Christian, who is not wrapping his or her mind around the theological constructs of the great minds of the church, would it be wrong, to relate to God, as He has presented himself?
> 
> Bottom line, if God says He mourns the wounds of His creation, then why not describe it that way to the wounded and leave it at that?
> 
> I'm not saying the discussion should not be had, it should be, and I love it, but, as we take it to the mainstream?
> 
> Another thought,
> 
> To me it seems, one side fears we make God a changing God, if we don't rightly explain the emotional terms He uses to describe himself.
> 
> The other, fears, explaining them away, we make God an impersonal God.
> 
> Just trying to wrap the concepts to fit this lay-person's mind.



Trevor as another lay-person who has really appreciated the thread I too wonder if we can't speak in these terms as God does? I tend to think we can as long as we understand that it is a 'lisping' about Him and don't confuse the language as if it were absolute? -- don't come to shift in our minds or in other peoples' to whom we are speaking, an accommodated revelation of God for an image of our own, whose will is thwarted and feelings hurt and ultimately who is a victim of creation?

I also wanted to say that for my part, as a housewife, there is great practical value in understanding this language as an accommodation: this thread has been a great joy to me. Before I understood all of this, a few years ago, one morning when I was basically feeling like I had been flogged to the end of my resources, Ruben was reading Scripture to me: I wasn't catching what he was saying I was so walled in with exhaustion -- just one phrase, which I don't even remember perfectly, about how God our maker doesn't fail. It suddenly hit me that though I was sick, unhappy, utterly at the end and the 'victim' of all these circumstances, floundering and failing, my God was _not tired, not sick, not unhappy, not the victim of any circumstance, outside the possibility of failing_ -- he was beyond all these things, existing utterly, eternally blessed. I could almost hear the music of the spheres . I could do what needed to be done that day because beyond me, such a God is, was, and ever will be. I think that the joy of the Lord in that regard is some of the most potent strength a lay-person could know?


----------



## tdowns

*Yes...*

Great points, that's what we rest in.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Dr. Gonzales, 

In post #3 of this thread you mention a number of Reformed scholars who affirm divine emotivity. In post #10 you quote Warfield on the subject. 

In response to what you posited, your views were declared - not accused of being, but actually declared - to be pantheistic (of course that is nonsense because a pantheist sees God as an impersonal being - a force - if you will, because God is everything, and you clearly believe that God is a personal being). However, when you quote Warfield who uses much stronger rhetoric than yourself, the tone demured a bit and he was declared - again, not accused of being, but actually declared - to be inconsistent in his Reformed theology. Now, in my opinion, going from holding pagan beliefs to "merely" being inconsistent with one's Reformed thought is quite a jump. It may be helpful if you would offer citations from these Reformed scholars, because let's face it: on the credibility scale the likes of Warfield and Hodge carry more weight than Gonzales.
This certainly won't change the mind of some -or even many here, but for those who are not yet decided, it may be helpful to see that one can in fact be Reformed and NOT argue that God is, as you say, "comfortably numb." 

I will say that I understand the impassiblity of God along the lines articulated by Packer in the quotes offered by Gomarus in post #40. 

Not sure if it is relevant, but Grudem defines impassibility much as it has been defined in this thread by Rev. Winzer and others... and then rejects it as based more upon pagan philosophy than Scripture. I don't think that his rejection of the impassibility of God would have been necessary if he would define it in terms akin to those by Packer and Warfield.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Wayne Grudem writes in _Systematic Theology_, 2000, Zondervan, pg. 196:
“c. The Question of God’s Impassibility: Sometimes in a discussion of God’s attributes theologians have spoken of another attribute, namely, the impassibility of God. This attribute, if true, would mean that God does not have passions or emotions, but is “impassible,” not subject to passions. In fact, chapter 2 of the Westminster Confession of Faith says that God is “without . . . passions.” This statement goes beyond what we have affirmed in our definition above about God’s unchangeableness, and affirms more than that God does not change in his being, perfections, purposes, or promises— it also affirms that God does not even feel emotions or “passions.” The Scripture proof given by the Westminster Confession of Faith is Acts 14:15, which in the King James Version reports Barnabas and Paul as rejecting worship from the people at Lystra, protesting that they are not gods but “men of like passions with you.” The implication of the KJV translation might be that someone who is truly God would not have “like passions” as men do, or it might simply show that the apostles were responding to the false view of passionless gods assumed by the men of Lystra (see vv. 10–11). But if the verse is rightly translated, it certainly does not prove that God has no passions or emotions at all, for the Greek term here (_homoiopathe_) can simply mean having similar circumstances or experiences, or being of a similar nature to someone else. Of course, God does not have sinful passions or emotions. But the idea that God has no passions or emotions at all clearly conflicts with much of the rest of Scripture, and for that reason I have not affirmed God’s impassibility in this book. Instead, quite the opposite is true, for God, who is the origin of our emotions and who created our emotions, certainly does feel emotions: God rejoices (Isa. 62:5). He is grieved (Ps. 78:40; Eph. 4:30). His wrath burns hot against his enemies (Ex. 32:10). He pities his children (Ps. 103:13). He loves with everlasting love (Isa. 54:8; Ps. 103:17). He is a God whose passions we are to imitate for all eternity as we like our Creator hate sin and delight in righteousness.”​
I think Grudem does not go far enough in describing exactly how God's "emotions" are distinguished from our own. As such he leaves too much on the table to be easily misunderstood.


----------



## sotzo

Doesn't this whole issue clear up when we agree to say that God has willed himself to be emotive and that since his will is not contingent on anything he has created, he can be emotive without it being derived outside of himself?

On the matter of Dr. Gonzalez being pantheistic, I don't see the connection and think such inferences are tantamount to telling our Baptist brothers that "you obviously think infants go to hell since you don't believe they can be saved apart from their own decision to accept Christ". Alot of this board's worth is indeed bound to our commitment to stay within confessional standards...but, surely the board's worth is also bound to taking our brothers at face alue when they say they adhere to those standards...and to reserve charges of heresy for clear instances in which those confessional standards have been breached.


----------



## CDM

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Wayne Grudem writes in _Systematic Theology_, 2000, Zondervan, pg. 196:
> “c. The Question of God’s Impassibility: Sometimes in a discussion of God’s attributes theologians have spoken of another attribute, namely, the impassibility of God. This attribute, if true, would mean that God does not have passions or emotions, but is “impassible,” not subject to passions. In fact, chapter 2 of the Westminster Confession of Faith says that God is “without . . . passions.” This statement goes beyond what we have affirmed in our definition above about God’s unchangeableness, and affirms more than that God does not change in his being, perfections, purposes, or promises— it also affirms that God does not even feel emotions or “passions.” The Scripture proof given by the Westminster Confession of Faith is Acts 14:15, which in the King James Version reports Barnabas and Paul as rejecting worship from the people at Lystra, protesting that they are not gods but “men of like passions with you.” The implication of the KJV translation might be that someone who is truly God would not have “like passions” as men do, or it might simply show that the apostles were responding to the false view of passionless gods assumed by the men of Lystra (see vv. 10–11). But if the verse is rightly translated, it certainly does not prove that God has no passions or emotions at all, for the Greek term here (_homoiopathe_) can simply mean having similar circumstances or experiences, or being of a similar nature to someone else. Of course, God does not have sinful passions or emotions. But the idea that God has no passions or emotions at all clearly conflicts with much of the rest of Scripture, and for that reason I have not affirmed God’s impassibility in this book. Instead, quite the opposite is true, for God, who is the origin of our emotions and who created our emotions, certainly does feel emotions: God rejoices (Isa. 62:5). He is grieved (Ps. 78:40; Eph. 4:30). His wrath burns hot against his enemies (Ex. 32:10). He pities his children (Ps. 103:13). He loves with everlasting love (Isa. 54:8; Ps. 103:17). He is a God whose passions we are to imitate for all eternity as we like our Creator hate sin and delight in righteousness.”​
> I think Grudem does not go far enough in describing exactly how God's "emotions" are distinguished from our own. As such he leaves too much on the table to be easily misunderstood.



Far enough? It doesn't appear that he even touched the matter. If this is all Grudem wrote on the subject this is at best a disappointment. He just simply asserted his opinion. At least Dr. Gonzalez has sought to interact with the classic reformed view as described by by Rev. Winzer.


----------



## a mere housewife

(Along the lines of what Patrick posted: A question about the previous quotes: they seem to say, "yes the Creator feels these 'emotions' as His creations do, He just inflicts them on Himself" rather than saying "The language of emotions itself is an accommodation to our created nature?" Surely the plane on which God 'enters into' human sufferings is not the same plane in which we enter into them, regardless of self-will [doesn't fully actualised self-will, and not having a body, preclude the possibility of emotions like ours?] -- thus Calvin speaks of Him lisping as a nurse with little children in physical and emotional language with us?)


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

mangum said:


> . . . I think Grudem does not go far enough in describing exactly how God's "emotions" are distinguished from our own. As such he leaves too much on the table to be easily misunderstood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Far enough? It doesn't appear that he even touched the matter. If this is all Grudem wrote on the subject this is at best a disappointment. He just simply asserted his opinion. At least Dr. Gonzalez has sought to interact with the classic reformed view as described by by Rev. Winzer.
Click to expand...


In my humble opinion, Grudem is theologically disappointing in a number of areas. I agree this is certainly one.


----------



## he beholds

sotzo said:


> Doesn't this whole issue clear up when we agree to say that God has willed himself to be emotive and that since his will is not contingent on anything he has created, he can be emotive without it being derived outside of himself?
> 
> On the matter of Dr. Gonzalez being pantheistic, I don't see the connection and think such inferences are tantamount to telling our Baptist brothers that "you obviously think infants go to hell since you don't believe they can be saved apart from their own decision to accept Christ". Alot of this board's worth is indeed bound to our commitment to stay within confessional standards...but, surely the board's worth is also bound to taking our brothers at face alue when they say they adhere to those standards...and to reserve charges of heresy for clear instances in which those confessional standards have been breached.



Thank you*↑↑↑*

When opening this thread, I expected a discussion considering whether God is sad specifically for reprobates. I never imagined that it would be about whether God feels anything at all. I have never considered that idea and have always assumed that God does have emotions.

My interest has been piqued. However, and no offense is intended, the side that is standing up for an un-feeling God is itself showing to be un-feeling! If I were very new to the faith and were using my own emotions as a guide, I would immediately choose the other side, for Dr. Gonzales and the others were being kind and helpful in their posts, whereas some on the other side were being quite hostile. The arrogance and hostility alone would have turned me off from even considering that viewpoint.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I know this stuff is very weighty and doesn't lend itself to easy understanding but let me clear up something that might have been confused by some of the interchange.

There seems to be a misunderstanding involved here that, for God to be immanent or involved in His creation He has to be "emotional". That is to say, that if God doesn't have an analagous response of emotions to historical events then He is uninvolved in His creation and we have to assume a pagan transcendance where God is static and immovable.

I think this is a false dilemna. I find a more satisfactory explanation in God's activity with man in this from Rev. Winzer above:


> Joy is something we are commanded to do, not something which we feel when the mood is right.
> 
> Wrath is the choice to oppose and destroy that which is contrary to the principles of justice.
> 
> Pleasure is a state of being which results when a person has rationally evaluated what is good and actively pursues it.
> 
> Jealousy is also an act of the will, which refers to God's readiness to avenge His honour when those who have bound themselves to Him give themselves to another.
> 
> Peace is the state of being reconciled with another.
> 
> All these traits can be understood volitionally or emotively. It is the interpreter who reads emotive language into them.


In other words, activity is not being denied nor is God's interest and immanence with the Creation denied but what is challenged is that wrath, love, justice, etc are analagous to human emotions.

Circumstances affect human emotions. Events and reports of things evoke feelings and reactions from us.

When we're reading antrhopathetic descriptions of God's interactions with men, I think what is being argued is that it is a mistake to assume that God's activity is to be understood in emotionally reactive ways.

I understand that the term "pantheistic" is provocative in one sense but to assert that God reacts emotively is to describe God so immanently that He becomes part of His creation and dependent upon it for His emotional state. One can more properly protect God's transcendence and immanence as Creator and do full justice to both without defining His immanence in the way suggested.

In fact, I think a good starting point to discuss what wrath, love, joy, peace, etc really are is to discuss whether what we are called to in these things ourselves is emotional or is it activity? If one simply accepts that these are, essentially, emotions, then how is one able to love when they have no emotions of love or to be joyful always when tragedy strikes. One need not even look further than the nature of human activity and response to learn something about the true nature of these fruits. If we're not called merely to be emotional in our love and joy then why is God better off being emotional? Don't we understand, even by the light of nature, that it is the undisciplined and unstable that act according to emotion?


----------



## Iconoclast

I like this quote from JL Dagg


> In our study of God's attributes, it is important to remember, at every step of our progress, that they are all incomprehensible to us. We should do this, not only for the sake of humility, but to guard us against erroneous inferences, which we are liable to draw from our imperfect conceptions of the divine nature. It is instructive to notice how far the elements of these conceptions are derived from what we know of our own minds. No combination of such elements can possibly give us adequate conceptions of the eternal and infinite Mind. Even the Holy Scriptures, which reveal God to us, do not supply the elementary conceptions necessary to a perfect knowledge of God. They speak to human beings in human language, and the knowledge which they impart is sufficient for our present necessities, and able to make us wise to salvation; but we should remember, that human language cannot express to us what the human mind cannot conceive, and, therefore, cannot convey a full knowledge of the deity.


here is another


> But why should we indulge ourselves in vain speculations, or exhaust ourselves with needless efforts? We are like children who wade into the ocean, to learn its depth by the measure of their little stature, and who exclaim, almost at their first step, O! how deep! Even Paul, when laboring to fathom this subject exclaimed, "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!"[46]


these quotes came from here,Founders Ministries | DAGG BK. 2 CHAPTER II


----------



## Semper Fidelis

he beholds said:


> sotzo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't this whole issue clear up when we agree to say that God has willed himself to be emotive and that since his will is not contingent on anything he has created, he can be emotive without it being derived outside of himself?
> 
> On the matter of Dr. Gonzalez being pantheistic, I don't see the connection and think such inferences are tantamount to telling our Baptist brothers that "you obviously think infants go to hell since you don't believe they can be saved apart from their own decision to accept Christ". Alot of this board's worth is indeed bound to our commitment to stay within confessional standards...but, surely the board's worth is also bound to taking our brothers at face alue when they say they adhere to those standards...and to reserve charges of heresy for clear instances in which those confessional standards have been breached.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you*↑↑↑*
> 
> When opening this thread, I expected a discussion considering whether God is sad specifically for reprobates. I never imagined that it would be about whether God feels anything at all. I have never considered that idea and have always assumed that God does have emotions.
> 
> My interest has been piqued. However, and no offense is intended, the side that is standing up for an un-feeling God is itself showing to be un-feeling! If I were very new to the faith and were using my own emotions as a guide, I would immediately choose the other side, for Dr. Gonzales and the others were being kind and helpful in their posts, whereas some on the other side were being quite hostile. The arrogance and hostility alone would have turned me off from even considering that viewpoint.
Click to expand...


Jessi,

I understand this. You sort of confirm my great concern that this kind of presentation is not helpful in this forum. The controversy erupted in another thread because the idea is that the majority position on the impassiblity of God in orthodox Christianity presents a God who is "comfortably numb" and that this is inadquate. Well, who wants a God who is comfortably numb? I want a God who cares about me.

In other words, the title and presentation sort of poisons the well from the beginning. It might not have been intended but the title itself provokes the notion that orthodoxy has placed God in a transcendent stasis where he can't break into His own creation unless He has emotions analagous to our own.

I know Rev. Winzer and his concerns are pastoral. He's not a touchy-feely guy in his presentation but I know what his heart is in the matter because I think he views the presentation as potentially perilous for the onlooker.

It goes to my point in my last post, then, about the nature of reaction to things. That is to say that, in matters of Truth, perceived "mean-ness" actually affects men/women in their apprehension of Truth. I believe this more because this guy is more winsome than the other. Surely we have to all agree that God does not judge according to such an unstable standard.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Semper Fidelis said:


> *I understand that the term "pantheistic" is provocative in one sense but to assert that God reacts emotively is to describe God so immanently that He becomes part of His creation and dependent upon it for His emotional state. *One can more properly protect God's transcendence and immanence as Creator and do full justice to both without defining His immanence in the way suggested.
> 
> In fact, I think a good starting point to discuss what wrath, love, joy, peace, etc really are is to discuss whether what we are called to in these things ourselves is emotional or is it activity? If one simply accepts that these are, essentially, emotions, then how is one able to love when they have no emotions of love or to be joyful always when tragedy strikes. One need not even look further than the nature of human activity and response to learn something about the true nature of these fruits. If we're not called merely to be emotional in our love and joy then why is God better off being emotional? Don't we understand, even by the light of nature, that it is the undisciplined and unstable that act according to emotion?



Thanks for helping us out in understanding this Rich. I know Rev. Winzer doesn't just throw terminology around. There was a reason for it. 

*Pantheism*
2. any religious belief or philosophical doctrine that identifies God with the universe.


----------



## he beholds

Semper Fidelis said:


> Jessi,
> 
> I understand this. You sort of confirm my great concern that this kind of presentation is not helpful in this forum. The controversy erupted in another thread because the idea is that the majority position on the impassiblity of God in orthodox Christianity presents a God who is "comfortably numb" and that this is inadquate. Well, who wants a God who is comfortably numb? I want a God who cares about me.
> 
> In other words, the title and presentation sort of poisons the well from the beginning. It might not have been intended but the title itself provokes the notion that orthodoxy has placed God in a transcendent stasis where he can't break into His own creation unless He has emotions analagous to our own.
> 
> I know Rev. Winzer and his concerns are pastoral. He's not a touchy-feely guy in his presentation but I know what his heart is in the matter because I think he views the presentation as potentially perilous for the onlooker.
> 
> It goes to my point in my last post, then, about the nature of reaction to things. That is to say that, in matters of Truth, perceived "mean-ness" actually affects men/women in their apprehension of Truth. I believe this more because this guy is more winsome than the other. *Surely we have to all agree that God does not judge according to such an unstable standard.*



Thanks, Rich! And I do agree that the perceived mean-ness should not influence our theology and that God will not judge our understanding based on what attracted us to it. I think I was just surprised at how cold it was in here.*Brrr*


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Let me make one other comment with respect to Dr. Bob. He is one of the most humble and decent people I've run across on this board. He takes it on the chin very well and with a tremendous amount of grace. We've interacted in PM and in other channels and the man exudes Christian maturity and character. Whatever concerns I have about him are not in his love for God or desire to honor Him. I don't want people to think that my criticism descend to the man himself. It is readily apparent to me that he is much better studied on many things than I and his willingness to interact in a conciliatory and respectful way to my concerns, as rough as they are at times, ought to serve as an example to all. He truly is an Israelite without guile.


----------



## py3ak

We discussed the question of divine impassibility previously as well.

If this is taken up, perhaps we ought to do a spin-off thread about the place of philosophy and theology, but I wanted to reply to what I think is a red herring: "you're getting that view (of God's impassibility) from Greek philosophy." If that means anything, it means that we ought to be _ashamed_ that as Reformed believers, having the advantages of the Confessions and the writing of our predecessors, and principally of a completed special revelation, we are struggling to maintain an aspect of _natural religion_ which some of Plato's disciples saw clearly.

Here is Augustine, _The City of God_, Book VIII, Chapter 6


> These philosophers, then, whom we see not undeservedly exalted above the rest in fame and glory, have seen that no material body is God, and therefore they have transcended all bodies in seeking for God. They have seen that whatever is changeable is not the most high God, and therefore they have transcended every soul and all changeable spirits in seeking the supreme. They have seen also that, in every changeable thing, the form which makes it that which it is, whatever be its mode or nature, can only be through Him who truly is, because He is unchangeable. And therefore, whether we consider the whole body of the world, its figure, qualities, and orderly movement, and also all the bodies which are in it; or whether we consider all life, either that which nourishes and maintains, as the life of trees, or that which, besides this, has also sensation, as the life of beasts; or that which adds to all these intelligence, as the life of man; or that which does not need the support of nutriment, but only maintains, feels, understands, as the life of angels,—all can only be through Him who absolutely is. For to Him it is not one thing to be, and another to live, as though He could be, not living; nor is it to Him one thing to live, and another thing to understand, as though He could live, not understanding; nor is it to Him one thing to understand, another thing to be blessed, as though He could understand and not be blessed. But to Him to live, to understand, to be blessed, are to be. They have understood, from this unchangeableness and this simplicity, that all things must have been made by Him, and that He could Himself have been made by none.


----------



## he beholds

I should apologize. I did not mean to hurt anyone's feelings, so I hope that I did not. I am sure I was perceiving some "mean-ness" that was not really there, and I was surprised, b/c the tone of this thread felt different to me than usual PB debates. 
I think I was intending to be helpful, by pointing out that anger does not help one teach others a new thing, but I think I was actually rude. Sorry♥


----------



## Zenas

Group hug time?


----------



## py3ak

he beholds said:


> I should apologize. I did not mean to hurt anyone's feelings, so I hope that I did not. I am sure I was perceiving some "mean-ness" that was not really there, and I was surprised, b/c the tone of this thread felt different to me than usual PB debates.
> I think I was intending to be helpful, by pointing out that anger does not help one teach others a new thing, but I think I was actually rude. Sorry♥



Except that you're forgetting that we don't have feelings to be hurt!


----------



## MW

SolaScriptura said:


> In response to what you posited, your views were declared - not accused of being, but actually declared - to be pantheistic (of course that is nonsense because a pantheist sees God as an impersonal being - a force - if you will, because God is everything, and you clearly believe that God is a personal being). However, when you quote Warfield who uses much stronger rhetoric than yourself, the tone demured a bit and he was declared - again, not accused of being, but actually declared - to be inconsistent in his Reformed theology.



Just to put this back into context, the pantheistic statement refers to the method of seeing God as emotive because man is an analogue of God and man has emotions. As has been pointed out, this supposes that God relates to and acts towards the creation in the same way that man does, which effectively makes God a part of the creation and denies His transcendence -- pantheism.

With regard to Warfield, he is a secondary reference being quoted in the articles, and certainly would not have gone the length that the articles have gone in ascribing sadness to God. I therefore pointed out the one phrase which shows from where the inconsistency of his perspective springs.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

he beholds said:


> I should apologize. I did not mean to hurt anyone's feelings, so I hope that I did not. I am sure I was perceiving some "mean-ness" that was not really there, and I was surprised, b/c the tone of this thread felt different to me than usual PB debates.
> I think I was intending to be helpful, by pointing out that anger does not help one teach others a new thing, but I think I was actually rude. Sorry♥



I'm sorry, I know you wrote something but the tears falling over my eyes, which resulted from your previous post, are obscuring my vision. I nearly wrecked on the way home from work. We Marines are not accustomed to being thought of as mean.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Semper Fidelis said:


> We Marines are not accustomed to being thought of as mean.



That's ok... as I say to my flock: Jesus loves you anyway. Maybe.

-----Added 2/18/2009 at 07:10:32 EST-----

Or, in the spirit of this thread: Jesus loves you... in an unfeeling way, of course.


----------



## he beholds

Andrew, Ruben, and Rich,
I can't call you what I'd like to, since I have so recently apologized
I'll have to settle with wise guys.
But really, you're making me die laughing.


----------



## sotzo

armourbearer said:


> Just to put this back into context, the pantheistic statement refers to the method of seeing God as emotive because man is an analogue of God and man has emotions.



But unless I've missed it, nobody here is saying God is emotive because man is an analogue of God and man has emotions. Rather, God is emotive because He wills Himself to be so apart from anything outside of Himself. Man is emotive because he is made in God's image and part of his image includes what He is in and of himself, part of which is emotive. Put this way, I don't see how such a view is any different than our general understanding of God's communicable attribute. 



> As has been pointed out, this supposes that God relates to and acts towards the creation in the same way that man does, which effectively makes God a part of the creation and denies His transcendence -- pantheism.



Agreed, but again, I don't see where anybody has said that God relates to and acts towards the creation in the same way that man does. We are bound to all sorts of contingencies....God is bound to none. But being outside the influence contingencies does not render Him emotionless.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Men,

Rich's last post about me was far too kind and generous. Also, I took to heart his comment that the title of my three-part article could give the false impression that God is uncaring. That's certainly not the God of John Calvin. In fact, I've returned to Part 1 of my article and added this qualifier, The satirical lyric above is, admittedly, a bit hyperbolic and rhetorically overstated. In fact, the God of classic and Reformed theologians like John Calvin is not heartless. Indeed, Calvin himself speaks of God's "fatherly care," which he extends to "all mankind."​Then I cite Calvin's commentary on Psalm 24:1-12:"We will find in many other places the children of Abraham compared with all the rest of mankind, that the free goodness of God, in selecting them from all other nations, and in embracing them with his favor, may shine forth the more conspicuously. The object of the beginning of the psalm is to show that the Jews had nothing of themselves which could entitle them to approach nearer or more familiarly to God than the Gentiles. As God by his providence preserves the world, the power of his government is alike extended to all, so that he ought to be worshipped by all, _even as he also shows to all men, without exception, the fatherly care he has about them_.... Now, as _from the creation of the world, God extended his fatherly care to all mankind, _the prerogative of honor, by which the Jews excelled all other nations, proceeded only from the free and sovereign choice by which God distinguished them" (emphasis added). Commentary on the Book of Psalms, trans. James Anderson (Reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2003), 401, 403-04.​I realize that Rich, Matthew and others may differ somewhat on what degree of continuity or discontinuity should be understood when speaking of divine and human emotions. But I just wanted you all to know that their comments and input have helped to sharpen my perspective and caution me to beware of overstating my case. 

Gratefully yours,


----------



## MW

sotzo said:


> But unless I've missed it, nobody here is saying God is emotive because man is an analogue of God and man has emotions.



See post #10:



> Fourth, I do believe that human emotions are analogues (i.e., copies) of divine emotivity.



It removes the Creator-creature distinction, and fails to account for the Creator-creature relation in the traditional terms of "voluntary condescension." It says, God IS this way in Himself, not, God WILLS to act this way towards His creatures.



sotzo said:


> Agreed, but again, I don't see where anybody has said that God relates to and acts towards the creation in the same way that man does.



Please read the articles in dispute. They deny the use of specific anthropomorphisms and teach that God actually repents and is genuinely sad.


----------



## KMK

There seems to be a paradigm represented in this thread that God is somehow less immanent if He emotes by volition. As Rich alluded to earlier, this is a false dilemma. Over two years ago I chose to place my love upon my daughter Sophie. At the time, I did not even know she existed. My wife and I entered into the adoption process as an act of _volitional_ love. Does that mean I am less 'involved' (immanent) with Sophie because I _chose_ to love her rather than _felt_ love for her as I did my bio-children? Actually, my involvement with my adoptive daughter has been much more taxing than with my bio-children (if you know what I mean).


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Ken,

When you say, "imminent," do you really mean "immanent"?


----------



## sotzo

sotzo said:


> But unless I've missed it, nobody here is saying God is emotive because man is an analogue of God and man has emotions.





armourbearer said:


> See post #10.


, which states:


> Fourth, I do believe that human emotions are analogues (i.e., copies) of divine emotivity.



Yes, human emotions are analogues of divine emotivity. They doesn't mean they are the *basis* of divine emotivity or identical in every way. In fact, calling them analogues assumes that human emotions necessarily find their basis elsewhere. And that basis (God) needs no other basis but the person of God Himself. I take Dr. Gonzales to mean this when he elaborates on the fourth point you cite above from post #10:



> The term "analogy," after all, does mean "similarity or comparability." God's emotions are not sinful or physiological in nature. Nor are they ever beyond his control or determination. Indeed, he has decreed every one of his inward and outward responses to events in creation. In that sense, there is discontinuity. But God's emotions of joy, sorrow, love, hatred, pleasure, anger, and jealousy are, like human emotions, inward (i.e., spiritual or psychological) responses to events. Infinitely more complex? Yes! But genuine emotive responses with which we can identify nonetheless. Otherwise, all "anthropopathisms" would be pointless.



I'll check out his articles as you suggest.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

To (hopefully) distance my position from Pantheism, let me offer the common definitions and some remarks:

*Pantheism*1. the doctrine that God is the transcendent reality of which the material universe and human beings are only manifestations: it involves a denial of God's personality and expresses a tendency to identify God and nature.
2. any religious belief or philosophical doctrine that identifies God with the universe.​Note the following: pantheism or pantheistic beliefs (1) deny God's personality; (2) identify God with nature (often as the impersonal force that animates material reality). 

There's a huge difference between "IS" and "LIKE." Nowhere in any of my posts or articles have I identified God with humans or divine emotivity with human emotivity. I repeatedly affirm God's self-sufficiency and independence. Furthermore, I argue that _God's emotive responses are grounded in God's unchanging moral nature and eternal decree, not human actions_. Warfield's "inducement from without" and my affirmation of God's "genuine responses to human events" do not negate this anymore than God's _historical_ responses to the plight of human sin via _historical_ acts of redemption and judgment makes his plan and work dependent on human sin. _Everything flows ultimately from God's sovereign will and moral character._ Nothing I've said contradicts that.

Respectfully,


----------



## MW

sotzo said:


> Yes, human emotions are analogues of divine emotivity.



You haven't proven divine emotivity. How do you propose to do it? By arguing from the creature to the Creator. To argue from the Creator to the creature in terms of communicable attributes is acceptable given that man is made in God's image; but to argue from the creature to the Creator is unacceptable because it creates God in man's image -- the very thing Romans 1 calls a vain imagination.


----------



## MW

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> 2. any religious belief or philosophical doctrine that identifies God with the universe.



Is God related to creation LIKE man is related to creation? If not, then God cannot have similar responses to the creation which man has. To argue that He does is to maintain that He is as wedded to the world as man is, which is pantheism.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

armourbearer said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. any religious belief or philosophical doctrine that identifies God with the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is God related to creation LIKE man is related to creation? If not, then God cannot have similar responses to the creation which man has. To argue that He does is to maintain that He is as wedded to the world as man is, which is pantheism.
Click to expand...


Matthew,

Did I actually say, "God is related to creation [just] like man is related to creation"? Did I say, "God is wedded to the world as man is"? Or did you put those words in my mouth? What I have argued is that man is _the image of God_. What's that mean? Here's my attempt at a biblical definition:

The term “image” in the Bible translates the Hebrew word _tselem_ in the OT and the Greek word _eikon_ in the NT. In the OT, _tselem_ is used of idols (Num 33:52), sculptured statuettes (1 Sam. 6:5, 11), a large statue of a man (Dan 3:1-3, 10, 12, 14-15, 18), and two-dimensional painted or carved image upon a wall (Ezek 23:14). In the NT, _eikon_ is used for the engraving of a human face upon a coin (Matt 22:20), idols (Rom 1:23), or a visible representation of the beast [i.e., anti-Christ] (Rev 13:14, 15; 14:9, 19; 15:2; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4). To summarize the biblical data, the term “image” refers to _a two or three-dimensional visible replica of an original that is predominantly concrete and physical in nature rather than abstract and immaterial. _

The word “likeness” translates the Hebrew word _demut _in the OT and the Greek word _homoiosis_ in the NT. In the OT, _demut_ refers to the physical and psychological resemblance of a father and his son (Gen. 5:3). It is used to refer to building plans (2 Kings 16:10). Finally, it is used for the abstract idea of resemblance (Ps. 58:4; Ezek. 1:5, 10, 28). In the NT, _homoiosis_ occurs only once, and it is only used of man in God’s likeness (Jas 3:9). However, a number of derivatives are used to convey the idea of correspondence. If the word “image” stresses the idea of visible representation, then the term “likeness” seems to stress the idea of corresponding resemblance. 

In light of the biblical usage of these terms, we can define an “image” or “likeness” as _a visible replica that represents and bears a resemblance to some original (archetype)_. If man is a visible replica of God, then it stands to reason that God has created man as that facet of _general revelation_ that provides us with the clearest and closest _analogue_ of Himself. Consequently, to know ourselves, we must know God. To know God, we must know ourselves. Once again, isn't this the point Calvin makes in his Institutes?
Nearly all the wisdom we possess, that is to say, true and sound wisdom, consists in two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves. *But, while joined by many bonds, which one precedes and brings forth the other is not easy to discern*. In the first place, no one can look upon himself without immediately turning his thoughts to the contemplation of God, in whom he ‘lives and moves.’ For, quite clearly, the mighty gifts with which we are endowed are hardly from ourselves…. Then, by these benefits shed like dew from heaven upon us, we are led as by rivulets to the spring itself…. Accordingly, the knowledge of ourselves not only arouses us to seek God, but also, as it were, leads us by the hand to find him.... It is certain that man never achieves a clear knowledge of himself unless he has first looked upon God’s face, and then descends from contemplating him to scrutinize himself" (emphasis added). _Institutes of the Christian Religion,_ trans. Ford Lewis Battles, ed. John T. McNeill [The Westminster Press, 1960], 1:35-36 [Book I, 1.1]; 1:37 [Book I, 1.2]).​Is that Pantheism or biblical theology? 

Cheers,


----------



## Zenas

armourbearer said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. any religious belief or philosophical doctrine that identifies God with the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is God related to creation LIKE man is related to creation? If not, then God cannot have similar responses to the creation which man has. To argue that He does is to maintain that He is as wedded to the world as man is, which is pantheism.
Click to expand...


Just curious, could it not be that God is emotive as man while not being related to creation; specifically what about creation is controlling over emotion to the point that in order to express them a link to Creation must be had? 

I don't know if that makes sense so, yeah.


----------



## MW

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Is that Pantheism or biblical theology?



Calvin doesn't argue man is A therefore God must be A. The fear of God taught Him not to curiosly pry into the secret things of God. Calvin's is biblical theology; yours is pantheistic. If that sounds cold to people, I'm sorry, but you need to face up to what you are doing.


----------



## MW

Zenas said:


> Just curious, could it not be that God is emotive as man while not being related to creation



The thesis is -- God sees sin; God is sad at sin. How can that be construed in a way that makes God's emotions unrelated to the creation? The very purpose of the thesis is to prove that God enters into meaningful emotional relations with His creation.


----------



## sotzo

armourbearer said:


> sotzo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, human emotions are analogues of divine emotivity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't proven divine emotivity. How do you propose to do it? By arguing from the creature to the Creator. To argue from the Creator to the creature in terms of communicable attributes is acceptable given that man is made in God's image; but to argue from the creature to the Creator is unacceptable because it creates God in man's image -- the very thing Romans 1 calls a vain imagination.
Click to expand...


I think we can agree the following syllogism would lead to pantheism:

God's attributes can be established on the basis of the attributes of man
We are emotive
Therefore, God is emotive 

But, I'm not proposing to prove divine emotivity starting from the creature. In the same way, I wouldn't propose establishing God's love or wisdom by starting with the creature. 

Rather, his emotivity is defined by His own revelation in Scripture.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

armourbearer said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that Pantheism or biblical theology?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calvin doesn't argue man is A therefore God must be A. The fear of God taught Him not to curiosly pry into the secret things of God. Calvin's is biblical theology; yours is pantheistic. If that sounds cold to people, I'm sorry, but you need to face up to what you are doing.
Click to expand...


Aye-yi-yi, Matthew. I think we're speaking past each other.  I didn't say, "Calvin argues man is A therefore God must be A." Nor do I deny God's incomprehensibility or the reality of mysteries in Scripture (Rom. 11). One reason I'm a compatilist and believe in God's sincere offer of the gospel to the non-elect is my determination not to "pry into the secret things of God." I try to stick with what's revealed. The Bible teaches that God thinks and man thinks; God feels and man feels; God acts and man acts. Yes, there's a whole lot of Creator-creature distinction that needs to be factored in. But if human language about God is to make any sense, it must convey some correspondence and analogy. Otherwise, we're left with the God of Karl Barth--the God who is "wholly other." 

I'd love to attempt to come to a better understanding of this topic with you, but I don't want to perpetuate any needless controversy. So 

May the Lord bless your day and grant me a good night's sleep.

Sincerely yours,


----------



## MW

sotzo said:


> Rather, his emotivity is defined by His own revelation in Scripture.



As noted in an earlier post, the interpreter has to read emotivity into the terms employed. At the same time he embroils the Bible in a mass of contradictions which make God A and nonA in the same way. E.g., Nothing is too hard for thee; what could have been done more to my vineyard? God is slow to anger; God is angry at the wicked every day. It repented God; God is not a man that He should repent. The interpreter chooses to take both terms in the same literalistic way and thereby represent the holy Scripture as contradicting itself. The old divinity was certainly much better because it effectively dealt with the first class of texts as referring to what God is and the latter class of texts as His condecending to act as a party to the terms of His covenant.


----------



## Zenas

I understand then.


----------



## Iconoclast

DR.Bob G,
in part 1 of your blog you wrote this in one of the paragraphs


> Where does this leave our interpretation of Genesis 6:6? A literal reading of that text suggests the idea that God genuinely experienced heart-felt sorrow and even anger in response to the escalation and aggravation of human sin (6:5). If we follow the reasoning of some classic theists, however, we may have to revise our exegetical conclusions. We are left with a God who thinks (6:5) and a God who acts (6:7), but not with a God who genuinely feels (6:6). God’s remorse and pain, we are told, do not refer to the kind of feelings that would prompt the redemptive/punitive action described in the verses that follow (6:8ff.). They are, rather, God’s mode of “accommodating himself” to our finite understanding.



When I read this my reaction to these words is that as created humans we react emotionally because we are often taken by surprise,let down by other humans, or in one way or another disappointed.
As we all know this can never happen to God because of who he is as the great I AM. So I have trouble trying to use language or put into words the terms of human emotion in speaking of God's actions.
So at this point I can more easily understand the more classic explanation of God using language to


> “accommodating himself” to our finite understanding.



[/QUOTE]
I will proceed to see what you offer in installment number 2 on the blog


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Iconoclast said:


> DR.Bob G,
> in part 1 of your blog you wrote this in one of the paragraphs
> 
> 
> 
> Where does this leave our interpretation of Genesis 6:6? A literal reading of that text suggests the idea that God genuinely experienced heart-felt sorrow and even anger in response to the escalation and aggravation of human sin (6:5). If we follow the reasoning of some classic theists, however, we may have to revise our exegetical conclusions. We are left with a God who thinks (6:5) and a God who acts (6:7), but not with a God who genuinely feels (6:6). God’s remorse and pain, we are told, do not refer to the kind of feelings that would prompt the redemptive/punitive action described in the verses that follow (6:8ff.). They are, rather, God’s mode of “accommodating himself” to our finite understanding.
> 
> 
> 
> When I read this my reaction to these words is that as created humans we react emotionally because we are often taken by surprise,let down by other humans, or in one way or another disappointed.
> As we all know this can never happen to God because of who he is as the great I AM. So I have trouble trying to use language or put into words the terms of human emotion in speaking of God's actions.
> So at this point I can more easily understand the more classic explanation of God using language to
> 
> 
> 
> “accommodating himself” to our finite understanding.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

 I will proceed to see what you offer in installment number 2 on the blog[/quote]

Hopefully, the 3rd part of my article will answer your question. 

Your servant,


----------



## MW

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> I try to stick with what's revealed. The Bible teaches that God thinks and man thinks; God feels and man feels; God acts and man acts. Yes, there's a whole lot of Creator-creature distinction that needs to be factored in.



The point here, brother, is that Calvin's method of interpretation has factored in the Creator-creature distinction, but you reject that factor and opt for the modern tendency to view God as reciprocating and feeling with man. You can't reject Calvin's methodology and then lay claim to doing the same thing Calvin does.


----------



## sotzo

armourbearer said:


> sotzo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rather, his emotivity is defined by His own revelation in Scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As noted in an earlier post, the interpreter has to read emotivity into the terms employed. At the same time he embroils the Bible in a mass of contradictions which make God A and nonA in the same way. E.g., Nothing is too hard for thee; what could have been done more to my vineyard? God is slow to anger; God is angry at the wicked every day. It repented God; God is not a man that He should repent. The interpreter chooses to take both terms in the same literalistic way and thereby represent the holy Scripture as contradicting itself. The old divinity was certainly much better because it effectively dealt with the first class of texts as referring to what God is and the latter class of texts as His condecending to act as a party to the terms of His covenant.
Click to expand...


Perhaps the best thing for me is if I could see an example of your exegesis of one of the notable passages on this topic in Genesis 6, which was stated earlier in the thread:

"The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain." 

Thanks for bearing with me...I do want to understand better on how to reconcile these things (to the extent we can reconcile them).


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

armourbearer said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> I try to stick with what's revealed. The Bible teaches that God thinks and man thinks; God feels and man feels; God acts and man acts. Yes, there's a whole lot of Creator-creature distinction that needs to be factored in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point here, brother, is that Calvin's method of interpretation has factored in the Creator-creature distinction, but you reject that factor and opt for the modern tendency to view God as reciprocating and feeling with man. You can't reject Calvin's methodology and then lay claim to doing the same thing Calvin does.
Click to expand...


Okay.


----------



## MW

sotzo said:


> Perhaps the best thing for me is if I could see an example of your exegesis of one of the notable passages on this topic in Genesis 6, which was stated earlier in the thread:
> 
> "The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain."



I am comfortable with Calvin's exegetical method, which can be found in his Commentary on Genesis. The translation should reflect the traditional "repented," and thereby allow the reader to compare this statement with other biblical usages of the word. "Filled with pain" certainly prejudices the reader's mind unnecessarily.


----------



## sotzo

armourbearer said:


> sotzo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps the best thing for me is if I could see an example of your exegesis of one of the notable passages on this topic in Genesis 6, which was stated earlier in the thread:
> 
> "The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am comfortable with Calvin's exegetical method, which can be found in his Commentary on Genesis. The translation should reflect the traditional "repented," and thereby allow the reader to compare this statement with other biblical usages of the word. "Filled with pain" certainly prejudices the reader's mind unnecessarily.
Click to expand...


Calvin in his commentary on Gen 6:6..

"...since God, in order more effectually to pierce our hearts, clothes himself with our affections. This figure, which represents God as transferring to himself what is peculiar to human nature, is called anthropopathia."

I take Calvin here to mean by "clothes himself with our affections" and "peculair to human nature" that God merely calls out a condition unique to us so that we can understand something about Him. That is, he uses something unique to us to communicate truth about Himself, yet without taking on that "something". OK. But I see a contradiction in Calvin himself because immediately before he says this, he exhorts:

"Meanwhile, unless we wish to provoke God, and to put Him to grief, let us learn to abhor and flee from sin." But if God does not grieve (ie, if grief is peculiar to man) then what purpose is there in the exhortation? 

Also, Calvin's rendering of the end of verse 6 is "it grieved him a his hteart"..I don't see how that predjudices the reader's mind less than "filled with pain".


----------



## MW

sotzo said:


> But I see a contradiction in Calvin himself because immediately before he says this, he exhorts:
> 
> "Meanwhile, unless we wish to provoke God, and to put Him to grief, let us learn to abhor and flee from sin." But if God does not grieve (ie, if grief is peculiar to man) then what purpose is there in the exhortation?



I take his words to be carrying through the accommodated language. The language is not without meaning, but should affect us in relational terms the same way as it would affect us to know that we grieve any person we love.


----------



## Iconoclast

DR.BOB G ,
I read the third part of your article and it did answer to some extent the question I raised before. You were careful to list some heretical ideas such as open view theism , that must be opposed.
I am just not comfortable with some of the ideas put forth as trying to work through the verses offered seems to rely on a subjective method of understanding the explanations offered
Maybe I just am unable to take it all in. I just think of God as so far beyond us that maybe I mentally shut down, or go into a defensive mind-set so as to not partake of some of the clear errors.
If confronted with the question of the original post- I would seek to state what I do know clearly from scripture.
1 ] the God of all the earth will do right

2] He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked

3]Jesus wept of Jerusalem/ yet it was destroyed

4] there will be judgment without mercy,to those who remain outside of Christ

5] those saints in REV.19 rejoice in the righteous judgment of God, as we will

Sorry , I cannot be of more help nevertheless I enjoyed thinking through this question once again.


----------



## sotzo

armourbearer said:


> sotzo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I see a contradiction in Calvin himself because immediately before he says this, he exhorts:
> 
> "Meanwhile, unless we wish to provoke God, and to put Him to grief, let us learn to abhor and flee from sin." But if God does not grieve (ie, if grief is peculiar to man) then what purpose is there in the exhortation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take his words to be carrying through the accommodated language. The language is not without meaning, but should effect us in relational terms the same way as it would affect us to know that we grieve any person we love.
Click to expand...


What that would mean is that it is the relationship with God that is in view in Gen 6:6, not the effect of our sin on Him...although it uses cause / effect language to communicate, I guess we have to essentially deny that use of such means is not indicative of a fact of God's emotivity...not being contentious, but I'll have to continue to prayerfully think through this topic in light of the Scripture in its entirety.

Thanks again and peace to you.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

armourbearer said:


> sotzo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps the best thing for me is if I could see an example of your exegesis of one of the notable passages on this topic in Genesis 6, which was stated earlier in the thread: "The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am comfortable with Calvin's exegetical method, which can be found in his Commentary on Genesis. The translation should reflect the traditional "repented," and thereby allow the reader to compare this statement with other biblical usages of the word. "Filled with pain" certainly prejudices the reader's mind unnecessarily.
Click to expand...


Here I'll have to respectfully disagree with Rev. Winzer's suggested interpretation of the first Hebrew word _nhm_. While the term can sometimes denote a change of mind (i.e., repentance), it's semantic range also includes the emotive ideas of "sorrow" and "grief." See the NAS, NIV, ESV, and NET. This meaning is further supported by the subsequent phrase, which literally reads, "and [God] felt grief [or pain] unto his heart." In Hebrew, it's quite common to place synonymous expressions in juxtaposition where the second statement further amplifies the first. Hence, if we want to understand the meaning of the first verb nhm, we should seek to understand the second expression. C. F. Keil confirms this syntatical approach: “The force of [_nhm_], “it repented the Lord,” may be grasped from the explanatory, “it grieved Him at His heart." _The Pentateuch_, trans. James Martin, Commentary on the Old Testament (reprint, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1986), 1:139. 

So what does the term "grieved [_'tsb_]" mean? The verb _‘tsb_ and its cognates often refer to _deep emotional pain_ experienced by humans. It denotes the aroused feelings of brothers whose sister has just been raped (Gen. 34:7), a loyal friend who has just learned of his father plans to murder his best friend (1 Sam. 20:34), a father who laments the untimely death of a prodigal son (2 Sam. 19:3 [Heb. 2]), and a wife whose husband has just deserted her (Isa. 54:6). Interestingly, the same terms are used to depict the “pain” Adam and Eve must suffer as a result of the curse—a pain including emotional as well as physical dimensions (3:16, 17). 

In conclusion, a natural reading of the text suggests that God responded to the aggravated and widespread human sin, violence, and (resultant) misery on the earth with _heartfelt sorrow and anger_. The English term "grief" can carry both ideas of sorrow and anger. These emotive responses, or perhaps to avoid the term "emotion," we might call them "dispositional affections," which flow from God's unchanging moral holiness, goodness and justice, functioned as the middle link in the following chain: (1) divine assessment of the human situation (Gen. 6:5); (2) divine inward moral appraisal of the human situation (Gen. 6:6); and (3) divine outward action in response to the human situation (Gen. 6:7ff.). From one perspective, these individual links may be viewed as discreet events in terms of God's sequential and covenantal interaction within the matrix of history (aka, God's immanence). From another perspective, these individual links may be viewed as the historical outworking of God's eternal decree and sovereign purpose (aka, God's transcendence). 

Your servant,

-----Added 2/19/2009 at 09:57:55 EST-----

One more thing. My difference with Rev. Winzer over the meaning of the first verb nhm (which he interprets "he repented" and I "he was grieved") in the context of Genesis 6:6, does not settle the issue of how to apply the significance of the verb(s) to God. Mr. Winzer is correct to point out that many Reformed interpreters take the expression figuratively. I'm not precisely sure what Mr. Winzer thinks is the real "referent" behind the figurative expression. But, if I'm not mistaken, theologians like Calvin, Turretin, and Owen interpret the language as referring not to a feeling but to God's volitional choice and action. I respect this view though I think it should be modified with the insights of Jonathan Edwards, who ably argues that the affections are actually part of the volitional faculty. I would even take it a step further and suggest that the affections are part of any _moral_ rational faculty. This, of course, begs the question of whether we may apply such conclusions regarding human emotivity by way of analogy to God. At this point, I am happy to refrain from being argumentative and to agree to disagree in a friendly way with Rev. Winzer whose commitment to Christ and the Bible I respect. 

Your servant,


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I'm going to go ahead and close this thread now but want to quote something from Calvin that I believe is apropos.


> For if we reflect how prone the human mind is to lapse into forgetfulness of God, how readily inclined to every kind of error, how bent every now and then on devising new and fictitious religions, it will be easy to understand how necessary it was to make such a depository of doctrine as would secure it from either perishing by the neglect, vanishing away amid the errors, or being corrupted by the presumptuous audacity of men. It being thus manifest that God, foreseeing the inefficiency of his image imprinted on the fair form of the universe, has given the assistance of his Word to all whom he has ever been pleased to instruct effectually, we, too, must pursue this straight path, if we aspire in earnest to a genuine contemplation of God; - we must go, I say, to the Word, where the character of God, drawn from his works is described accurately and to the life; these works being estimated, not by our depraved judgment, but by the standard of eternal truth. If, as I lately said, we turn aside from it, how great soever the speed with which we move, we shall never reach the goal, because we are off the course. We should consider that *the brightness of the Divine countenance, which even an apostle declares to be inaccessible, (1Ti 6: 16) is a kind of labyrinth, - a labyrinth to us inextricable, if the Word do not serve us as a thread to guide our path; and that it is better to limp in the way, than run with the greatest swiftness out of it.* Hence the Psalmist, after repeatedly declaring (Psa 93, 96, 97, 99, &c.) that superstition should be banished from the world in order that pure religion may flourish, introduces God as reigning; meaning by the term, not the power which he possesses and which he exerts in the government of universal nature, but the doctrine by which he maintains his due supremacy: because error never can be eradicated from the heart of man until the true knowledge of God has been implanted in it.


I fear that when we make too much of human analogy to determine the character of God we're reversing the direction that revelation is supposed to work. We cannot simply say: "Well, I imagine God must have willed Himself to react to avoid this problem...." Even if we convince ourselves we avoid making God a part of His creation, we are going further on that point than God has revealed about Himself. Calvin speaks wisely when He says that God lisps to us like babes. Our goal in revelation is not to understand the Archetype (God in Himself) but to be content with what He has revealed in the Ectype.

This topic is wearisome so I just ask that we give the issue of impassiblity a rest because, from a moderating standpoint, it's sort of like cordoning off an area where a person is juggling chainsaws. The trained pro is likely not going to drop them but you also don't want passersby to accidentally get injured as they get too close in their fascination.


----------

