# Does God have emotions?



## Richard King

I wasn't sure which topic to put this under. I often envision God as having emotions such as sadness, anger, joy, etc. and I was told by a 'bible teacher' that I could not be more wrong, that emotions are human characteristics only. What is the thinking on this?


----------



## DTK

> _Originally posted by Richard King_
> I wasn't sure which topic to put this under. I often envision God as having emotions such as sadness, anger, joy, etc. and I was told by a 'bible teacher' that I could not be more wrong, that emotions are human characteristics only. What is the thinking on this?


One walks a very fine theological line (tight rope) here. From both a biblical and historical, hermeneutical perspective, God has been understood to be impassible, i.e., "incapable of suffering; not susceptible to harm or pain; not to be touched or moved to passion or sympathy; unfeeling, or not showing feeling; without sensation."

Yet over and over in Scripture, we read (whether understood anthropomorphically for our sake or not) about God's anger, the Holy Spirit's being grieved, etc., and we see emotions expressed by our incarnate Lord Jesus Christ in the various Gospel accounts. I think we must affirm in faithfulness to biblical revelation that God is impassible, but that He has expressed emotions. What we must remember is that unlike man, God is not ruled by passion or emotion. He is not like some mythological, pagan deity that gets angry and then lashes out, as it were, in order to "even the score." I think we can safely posit that every emotion of God is suffused by His holiness. 

DTK


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

In "The Two Wills of God", I spent 500+ pages dealing with very question.

http://www.puritanpublications.com/Books/TwoWills.htm


----------



## cupotea

Roger Olson believes that the passability of God is one of the important things the Reformation restored.

His idea is that very early in history the Platonic idea of an entirely impassible God prevailed, though certainly somewhat modified, usually by the conclusion that passions were anthropomorphisms.

Luther was a strong upholder of the idea that God suffers, feels wrath, jealousy, etc.

MacCulloch in his new history of the Reformation plays a lot upon the contrast and intellectual conflict between the resurgent platonism of the humanists and the Augustinianism of the Reformers.

Frankly, I have no problem at all with the idea that God has feelings. I tend to be inclined to take the part of Jerusalem in it's conflict with Athens, to paraphrase Tertullian.


----------



## alwaysreforming

I think what might be being called into distinction here is the 'source' of these "emotions" from God.

The difference lies, I believe, in the fact that when God feels emotions, you could say that these have "already been planned out from all eternity." They are just and right emotions to "feel" over whatever events the Bible describes. But these emotions are not hoisted upon God, as if He himself is subject to the ebb and flow of humanity, and is reacting with a "caught-off-guard" emotional feeling when He sees man's doings. In other words, we are not influencing Him to feel a certain way, and by doing so "swaying" Him one way or another.

My language may not be 100% precise, but I just wanted to help clarify the concept that we do not in any way "control" God's emotions, nor would He allow anyone to do so. His perfect will is always being worked out to his most glory, so we can't "throw black marks" against His perfect peace by "acting badly" and causing Him to be sad for a little while. So, does God have emotions? Yes. But we don't need to worry about any degree of "mood swing" from the Almighty. He cannot be moved!


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by Richard King_
> I wasn't sure which topic to put this under. I often envision God as having emotions such as sadness, anger, joy, etc. and I was told by a 'bible teacher' that I could not be more wrong, that emotions are human characteristics only. What is the thinking on this?



I hope you didn't let that slip-by.

Scripture is rich with describing God's emotions. Does this teacher deny the Word of God?

Robin


----------



## Richard King

He doesn't verbally deny the word of God. 
I did quote some examples from the Bible that indicated God had emotions and this teacher simply said that if I thought about it long enough I would see that he is right.
I am still thinking about it.


----------



## JWJ

It would be wise for one to first define "emotions" and than properly apply the definition to the divided and compound senses of the Bible.

Jim


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

The Bible and the Westminster Confession teach that God is a spirit, without bodily parts or passions:



> Chapter Two
> Of God and the Holy Trinity
> 
> SECTION I. There is but one only,[1] living, and true God,[2] who is infinite in being and perfection,[3] a most pure spirit,[4] invisible,[5] without body, parts,[6] *or passions;[7]* immutable,[8] immense,[9] eternal,[10] incomprehensible,[11] almighty,[12] most wise,[13] most holy,[14] most free,[15] most absolute;[16] working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will,[17] for His own glory;[18] most loving,[19] gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin;[20] the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him;[21] and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments,[22] hating all sin,[23] and who will by no means clear the guilty.[24]
> 
> 
> Scripture Proof Texts
> [1] Deut. vi. 4; 1 Cor. viii. 4, 6; [2] 1 Thess. 1. 9; Jer. x. 10; [3] Job xi. 7, 8, 9; Job xxvi. 14; [4] John iv. 24; [5] 1 Tim. i. 17; [6] Deut. iv. 15, 16; John iv. 24, with Luke xxiv, 39; *[7] Acts xiv. 11, 15;* [8] James i. 17; Mal. iii. 6; [9] 1 Kings viii. 27; Jer. xxiii. 23, 24; [10] Ps. xc. 2; 1 Tim. i. 17; [11] Ps. cxlv. 3; [12] Gen. xvii. 1; Rev. iv. 8; [13] Rom. xvi, 27; [14] Isa. vi. 3; Rev. iv. 8; [15] Ps. cxv. 3; [16] Exod. iii. 14; [17] Eph. i. 11; [18] Prov. xvi. 4; Rom. xi. 36; [19] 1 John iv. 8, 16; [20] Exod. xxxiv. 6, 7; [21] Heb. xi. 6; [22] Neh. ix. 32, 33; [23] Ps. v. 5, 6; [24] Nah. i. 2, 3; Exod. xxxiv. 7. [25] John v. 26. [26] Acts vii. 2 [27] Ps. cxix. 68. [28] 1 Tim. vi. 15; Rom. ix.5. [29] Acts xvii. 24, 25. [30] Job xxii. 2, 3. [31] Rom. xi. 36; [32] Rev. iv. 11; 1 Tim. vi. 15; Dan. iv. 25, 35; [33] Heb. iv. 13;



A.A. Hodge says:



> (2.) We deny that the properties of matter, such as bodily parts and passions, belong to him. We make this denial --
> (a) because there is no evidence that he does possess any such properties; and, (b) because, from the very nature of matter end its affections, it is inconsistent with those infinite and. absolute perfections which are of his essence, such as simplicity, unchangeableness, unity, omnipresence, etc.
> 
> When the Scriptures, in condescension to our weakness, express the fact that God hears by saying that he has an ear, or that he exerts power by attributing to him a hand, they evidently speak metaphorically, because in the case of men spiritual faculties are exercised through bodily organs. And when they speak of his repenting, of his being grieved, or jealous, they use metaphorical language also, teaching us that he acts toward us as a man would when agitated by such passions. Such metaphors are characteristic rather of the Old than of the New Testament, and occur for the most part in highly rhetorical passages of the poetical and prophetical books.



Robert Shaw says:



> 3. It is asserted that this God is a most pure Spirit,"”that is, he is an incorporeal, immaterial, invisible, and immortal Being, without bodily parts or passions. " No man hath seen God at any time:" He "dwelleth in light, which no man can approach unto, whom no man hath seen nor can see." He is described as "invisible, incorruptible, and immortal." The Confession affirms that God is a pure Spirit, according to the Scriptures, and in opposition to an ancient sect of heretics, who, understanding everything spoken of God in a literal sense, held that God has bodily parts and a human form. These heretics are called Anthropomorphites; a name compounded of two Greek words,"”the one signifying human, and the other, shape or form. That corporeal parts and bodily members,"”such as eyes, ears, hands, and face, are ascribed to God in the Scriptures is certain; but such language is used in accommodation to our capacities, and must be understood in a way suitable to a pure spirit. Were the great God to speak of his essence and perfections as he is in himself, instead of being informed, we would be confounded. He, therefore, employs human properties and actions as emblems of his own spiritual perfections and acts. We become acquainted with persons and things by seeing them or hearing of them; and to intimate the perfect knowledge which God has of his creatures, eyes and ears are ascribed to him. It is chiefly by our hands that we exert our bodily strength; and hands are ascribed to God to denote his irresistible power. We look with an air of complacency and satisfaction on those whom we love; and God´s face denotes the manifestation of his favour. In the same manner must we explain the several passions that are ascribed to God,"”such as anger, fury, jealousy, revenge, bowels of mercy, &c. "Passion produces a vehemence of action; so when there is, in the providences of God, such a vehemence as, according to the manner of men, would import a passion, then that passion is ascribed to God. When he punishes men for sin, he is said to be angry; when he does that by severe and redoubled strokes, he is said to be full of fury and revenge; when he punishes for idolatry, or any dishonour done to himself, he is said to be jealous; when he changes the course of his proceedings, he is said to repent; when his dispensations of providence are very gentle, and his judgments come slowly from him, he is said to have bowels. And thus all the varieties of providence come to be expressed by all that variety of passions which, among men, might give occasion to such a variety of proceeding."



But Jesus was a man, with all of the passions of men, yet he governed his passions and never exercised them sinfully at any time. Thus, passion is not evil but good except when abused which is why we are warned against _inordinate passions_ (see Eph. 4.26: "Be ye angry, and sin not" and WLC #136 wherein we note that the Sixth Commandment prohibits "all excessive passions"). 

Matthew Henry on John 11.33-35:



> 33 When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews also weeping which came with her, he groaned in the spirit, and was troubled, 34 And said, Where have ye laid him? They said unto him, Lord, come and see. 35 Jesus wept.
> 
> [2.] He was troubled. He troubled himself; so the phrase is, very significantly. He had all the passions and affections of the human nature, for in all things he must be like to his brethren; but he had a perfect command of them, so that they were never up, but when and as they were called; he was never troubled, but when he troubled himself, as he saw cause. He often composed himself to trouble, but was never discomposed or disordered by it. He was voluntary both in his passion and in his compassion. He had power to lay down his grief, and power to take it again....1.) As he was going to the grave, as if he had been following the corpse thither, Jesus wept, v. 35. A very short verse, but it affords many useful instructions. [1.] That Jesus Christ was really and truly man, and partook with the children, not only of flesh and blood, but of a human soul, susceptible of the impressions of joy, and grief, and other affections. Christ gave this proof of his humanity, in both senses of the word; that, as a man, he could weep, and, as a merciful man, he would weep, before he gave this proof of his divinity. [2.] That he was a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief, as was foretold, Isa. liii. 3. We never read that he laughed, but more than once we have him in tears. Thus he shows not only that a mournful state will consist with the love of God, but that those who sow to the Spirit must sow in tears. [3.] Tears of compassion well become Christians, and make them most to resemble Christ. It is a relief to those who are in sorrow to have their friends sympathize with them, especially such a friend as their Lord Jesus.



And on John 2.13-17:



> 13 And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem, 14 And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: 15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables; 16 And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house a house of merchandise. 17 And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.
> 
> But see Christ's prudence in his zeal. When he drove out the sheep and oxen, the owners might follow them; when he poured out the money, they might gather it up again; but, if he had turned the doves flying, perhaps they could not have been retrieved; therefore to them that sold doves he said, Take these things hence. Note, Discretion must always guide and govern our zeal, that we do nothing unbecoming ourselves, or mischievous to others.



Passions suggest changeability. They can be ordinate or inordinate. God Incarnate demonstrated good passions. God (Father and Spirit) does not have passions though his character is described in such ways that our experience can comprehend.

[Edited on 11-14-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## Anton Bruckner

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> Passions suggest changeability. They can be ordinate or inordinate. God Incarnate demonstrated good passions. God (Father and Spirit) does not have passions though his character is described in such ways that our experience can comprehend.
> 
> [Edited on 11-14-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


So how can we believe that the Father "loves" the Son? Aren't acts of love made sincere by the emotional disposition of the Lover?

When David uses "Tender Mercies", am I to believe that there were simply David's perceptions whereas God was simply operating in a mechanical manner according to His ordinations?

I think God does have emotions, and this was one of His communicable attributes that He engraved on man, hence man being in His image, but I think the difference between God and man where emotions are concerned is that God's emotions are undergirded by His Holy Character. I believe that God hates, and loves, but when He hates He hates justifiably since He is without sin or hypocrisy, I also believe that when He loves, He loves justifiably because those whom He love are righteous and perfect as He, since His Son Jesus paid their penalties.

[Edited on 11-14-2005 by Slippery]


----------



## Romans922

Since we are made in the image of God, we have emotions, I would say He does too.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by Slippery_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> Passions suggest changeability. They can be ordinate or inordinate. God Incarnate demonstrated good passions. God (Father and Spirit) does not have passions though his character is described in such ways that our experience can comprehend.
> 
> [Edited on 11-14-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]
> 
> 
> 
> So how can we believe that the Father "loves" the Son? Aren't acts of love made sincere by the emotional disposition of the Lover?
> 
> When David uses "Tender Mercies", am I to believe that there were simply David's perceptions whereas God was simply operating in a mechanical manner according to His ordinations?
> 
> I think God does have emotions, and this was one of His communicable attributes that He engraved on man, hence man being in His image, but I think the difference between God and man where emotions are concerned is that God's emotions are undergirded by His Holy Character. I believe that God hates, and loves, but when He hates He hates justifiably since He is without sin or hypocrisy, I also believe that when He loves, He loves justifiably because those whom He love are righteous and perfect as He, since His Son Jesus paid their penalties.
> 
> [Edited on 11-14-2005 by Slippery]
Click to expand...


I made a point of using the word "passion" carefully. What is love? Love is, I think, a reflection of the divine character/nature and/or an act flowing from that character/nature. What is a "passion" or an "emotion"? These are the impulses that move us as humans which grow and subside. 

It is perfectly Biblical to say that God the Father loved God the Son from all eternity (see John 17). Love is a reflection of the character of God and involves acts proceeding from that divine nature. Those who are born of the Spirit love. And to be loved of God is to be known of God (1 John 4.7-8), which I think appropriately describes the love between Father and Son. There are multiple meanings of the word that are used in our everyday speech, however. Unbelievers cannot love God, but they can love the world or their family relations (not in a Biblical sense though). A really thorough discussion of this issue will cover all the different usages of these words, but that is more than I can do at present. 

God the Son Incarnate showed us what true love is: "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (John 15.13) -- see Rom. 5.7-8 or John 3.16, 18 or 1 Cor. 13.

Passions are an aspect of what makes us human. To say that God the Father has passions is to deny the meaning of Acts 14.15 (compare with James 5.17), wherein Paul distinguishes his human nature from that of God by emphasizing that he has passions. Passions mean change. That is inherent in the sense of the word. But God is unchangeable. Today we speak of emotions rather than passions (unless we watch soap operas) but the gist is the same. They are not good or bad in themselves but they do reflect something that changes. It is right for Christians to love with our emotions, but true love is much, much more than emotions. It involves self-sacrifice such as husbands are commanded to do for their wives as Christ did for the Church (Eph. 5.25). 

See Matthew Henry on Acts 14.15: 



> [1.] "Our nature will not admit it: We also are men of like passions with you" homoiopatheis: it is the same word that is used concerning Elias, Jam. v. 18, where we render it, subject to like passions as we are. "We are men, and therefore you wrong yourselves if you expect that from us which is to be had in God only; and you wrong God if you give that honour to us, or to any other man, which is to be given to God only. We not only have such bodies as you see, but are of like passions with you, have hearts fashioned like as other men (Ps. xxxiii. 15); for, as in water face answers to face, so doth the heart of man to man, Prov. xxvii. 19. We are naturally subject to the same infirmities of the human nature, and liable to the same calamities of the human life; not only men, but sinful men and suffering men, and therefore will not be deified."



God is love but God is also a Spirit. Love is part of the divine nature given to his children but love does not equate with passions. Passions may be moved by love, but love and passions are not properly interchangeable, precisely because love (divine) changes not and passions (human) do.


----------



## Saiph

It is a matter of perspective I think. To use anthropopathism in describing God as a "man of war" or the "jealousy of God", is to help us relate in our existential capacity to the way God deals with men. It tends to reflect on His imminence. Yet, the Isaiah concept of, "Who is like me ?" makes all those comparisons seem poetic or even superficial. 

Job 38:1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said: 
Job 38:2 "Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? 
Job 38:3 Dress for action like a man; I will question you, and you make it known to me. 
Job 38:4 "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. 

Passages like this emphasize God's transcendence. If God does have emotions they are immediate, not whimsical, and not based on any deficiency. Wheels within wheels.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

I think the emotional language has to be anthropomorphic, for the reasons Andrew (and fine Reformed men of old) listed.


----------



## Anton Bruckner

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> Passages like this emphasize God's transcendence. If God does have emotions they are immediate, not whimsical, and not based on any deficiency. Wheels within wheels.


I fully agree with the above, only difference is, I would not have phrased it in the hypothetical.


----------



## piningforChrist

God has religious affections, "The more vigorous and sensible exercises of the inclination and will of the soul."


----------



## satz

Will we still feel passions, even right ones, in heaven?


----------



## Saiph

> _Originally posted by satz_
> Will we still feel passions, even right ones, in heaven?



Of course. We are, and forever will be contingent beings.


----------



## BlackCalvinist

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> In "The Two Wills of God", I spent 500+ pages dealing with very question.
> 
> http://www.puritanpublications.com/Books/TwoWills.htm



Can you give us the abbreviated version here ?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by satz_
> Will we still feel passions, even right ones, in heaven?



Joy, yes; sorrow, no. 

I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance. (Luke 15.7)

Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth. (Luke 15.10)

And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. (Rev. 21.4)


----------



## VanVos

I my understanding God does have controlled righteous emotions. i.e. angry at sin, satisfaction in His Self glorification etc. The Holy Spirit is said to be grieved when believers sin. Eph 4:30. I think there are some scriptures such as this that we can't anthropopathize. 

Btw didn't Dr Clark deny that God had emotions, that God's divine mind is devoid of emotions?. 

VanVos

[Edited on 11-20-2005 by VanVos]


----------



## BlackCalvinist

I've always understood it kinda like DTK put it - God has emotions, but they aren't overwhelming passions that rule His whole Being as they do in human beings. Further, instead of 'just feeling them' like we do, God has full control over what He chooses to feel and His feelings are consistent with His nature (i.e.- He will _always_ feel anger toward sin, always feel joy at the worship of Christ).

I think it's very dangerous to 'de-emotionify' God or downgrade something that makes God a 'real Person' (real Persons, rather, since God is Triune) and not just a stoic, stolid, gray-haired ancient grandfather with a stone look on His face, never changing.....

[Edited on 11-20-2005 by OS_X]


----------



## VanVos

I don't think we are denying the impassability of God if we say He has self-controlled righteous emotions.


----------



## Arch2k

God's emotions are anthropopathic. When the Bible speaks of God having emotions, it is simply attributing human characteristics to God to "dumb it down" for us. 

When the Bible says that God sees everything do we assume he has eyes?

Term for the day: Anthropopathism.


----------



## BJClark

> I've always understood it kinda like DTK put it - God has emotions, but they aren't overwhelming passions that rule His whole Being as they do in human beings. Further, instead of 'just feeling them' like we do, God has full control over what He chooses to feel and His feelings are consistent with His nature (i.e.- He will _always_ feel anger toward sin, always feel joy at the worship of Christ).



Through Christ, we have the ability to control our emotions and our actions/re-actions. Isn't that what the fruit of the spirit Self-Control is really about?

I believe God is filled with emotions, yet they are controlled, as that is where we get that fruit, from Him. 

God is Jealous, is not Jealousy an emotion? Certainly it is, but it is controlled. God has desires, are not desires filled with emotions?

God Grieves, God loves, God is slow to anger, abounding in love, God is compassionate, God hates, so why shouldn't we see God for all that He is, instead of putting Him in a little box?

As others have said, we are created in His image, even what we deem negative emotions aren't negative if controlled by God's righteousness and Holiness. 

Emotions are neither good nor bad, they just are, and God created them in us, when? When HE created us in HIS image. 

Heart, Mind and Soul, inside a physical body, The only thing we had that God did not until Christ, was the physical body, the rest was created in HIS image. So to say that God does not have emotions, is to deny a part of God, since we, being created in His image have emotions. 

I don't believe sin coming into the world caused US to have emotions that the God who created us does not have. But that's just my 


[Edited on 11-21-2005 by BJClark]

[Edited on 11-21-2005 by BJClark]


----------



## BlackCalvinist

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> God's emotions are anthropopathic. When the Bible speaks of God having emotions, it is simply attributing human characteristics to God to "dumb it down" for us.
> 
> When the Bible says that God sees everything do we assume he has eyes?
> 
> Term for the day: Anthropopathism.



I honestly don't think that anthropopathism is necessary here. I think some of the emotional language used in scripture simply means what it says. 

I think God laughs at the dancing banana like we do, but not like we do.  No need to 'redefine' what emotions are for God.......


----------



## Arch2k

Attributing emotions to God in that fashion destroys the immutability of God. If God can be angry, sad, happy etc., he changes.


----------



## BlackCalvinist

Not necessarily. 

If God's emotions ruled His entire being at any one particular time, then yes.

But God is more complex than human beings. It is possible for us to be both saddened by the loss of a brother or sister, yet happy because they are currently in heaven with the Savior, why is it not possible for the God who created human beings to feel multiple emotions at once toward different things ?

God's mercy says 'I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked' in Ezekiel 18, yet God's justice says He does in Psalm 2. God hasn't 'changed' here. 

I think the same can be ascribed to the complex emotional life of God.


----------



## cupotea

Yeah, I think the denial that God has emotions is a walk down Plato avenue.

"What hath Jerusalem to do with Athens?" -Tertullian


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by OS_X_
> Not necessarily.
> 
> If God's emotions ruled His entire being at any one particular time, then yes.
> 
> But God is more complex than human beings. It is possible for us to be both saddened by the loss of a brother or sister, yet happy because they are currently in heaven with the Savior, why is it not possible for the God who created human beings to feel multiple emotions at once toward different things ?



The question isn't if God can feel multiple emotions at once, but if His character consists of emotions or if they are anthropopathisms. Emotions when attributed to God are speaking of him in human terms. God is a simple being. To attribute emotions to him not only ruins his immutability, but causes him to be infinitely complex.

WSC
Q4: What is God? 
A4: God is a Spirit,[1] infinite,[2] eternal,[3] and unchangeable,[4] in his being,[5] wisdom,[6] power,[7] holiness,[8] justice, goodness, and truth.[9] 

1. John 4:24
2. Job 11:7
3. Psa. 90:2
4. James 1:17
5. Exod. 3:14
6. Psa. 147:5
7. Rev. 4:8
8. Rev. 15:4
9. Exod. 34:6



> _Originally posted by OS_X_
> God's mercy says 'I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked' in Ezekiel 18, yet God's justice says He does in Psalm 2. God hasn't 'changed' here.
> 
> I think the same can be ascribed to the complex emotional life of God.



I agree God has not changed. But how do you reconcile these two passages? Either he is pleased when the wicked die, or he is not. My position is that the one (Ezekiel) is speaking "according to the manner of men" as Calvin would say or "in the divided sense" as Turretin would say. The other (Psalm 2) is speaking of how God is IN AND OF HIMSELF. It is in the latter sense that God cannot be said to have emotions. The former sense is speaking anthropomorphically.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Steadfast_
> Yeah, I think the denial that God has emotions is a walk down Plato avenue.
> 
> "What hath Jerusalem to do with Athens?" -Tertullian



What basis do you have for this charge?

Our interpretation of scripture must be logical.


----------



## cupotea

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Steadfast_
> Yeah, I think the denial that God has emotions is a walk down Plato avenue.
> 
> "What hath Jerusalem to do with Athens?" -Tertullian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What basis do you have for this charge?
> 
> Our interpretation of scripture must be logical.
Click to expand...


Right, so when the Bible says "God was wrathful/sorrowful/jealous/loving" it's logical not to explain it away with appeals to philosophy.

But, look at it this way. Surely you wouldn't deny that God is merciful to the elct but will show wrath toward the reprobate?

According to your thinking, wouldn't this too, imply change?


----------



## BlackCalvinist

Well.... He is God..... infinitely complex would be right in line with infinitely _everything else_ that He is..... all that, perfectly in line with Him being immutable, since His complexity and simpleness are things that ARE - they never change. God is forever ONE. God is forever THREE. (of course, both not in the same sense). Simple (ONE). Complex (THREE). 

As for the Ezekiel and Psalm passages.... there's no need to reconcile them.

Let me push the evelope a bit further to show you:

Luke 13, NKJV
34 "œO Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, but you were not willing!"

Did Christ truly want to gather the children of Jerusalem together ? Was Christ faking the emotional depth in these words ?

and we know enough of Prov. 16 and Eph. 1:3-14 to know that God works _all things_ in human history for His glory. Indeed, Romans 11 says directly: 

32For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.

So in one sense, God has hardened Israel because of their disobedience in the past and this is His express desire, yet in another sense, He also desired (in a different sense) that Israel be gathered to Him as chicks to a mother hen, but they would not come.

If none of this contradicts God's immutability, why should 'emotions' minus anthropopathism ?

Confessions and catechisms and theologians can and DO err, my friend. Trust the scriptures.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Steadfast_
> Right, so when the Bible says "God was wrathful/sorrowful/jealous/loving" it's logical not to explain it away with appeals to philosophy.



Following this thinking, you must say that God has a body, wings etc. etc., for to "explain them away" using anthropomorphisms would be "appealing to philosophy."

I am harmonizing scripture with scripture. You cannot have a God who does not change, and a God with emotions (unless used anthropopatically) at the same time.



> _Originally posted by Steadfast_
> But, look at it this way. Surely you wouldn't deny that God is merciful to the elct but will show wrath toward the reprobate?
> 
> According to your thinking, wouldn't this too, imply change?



Absolutely not. My view is that God has emotions biblically in a sense. But this sense is anthropopathically. When we look at God in and of himself, he does not have emotions, for emotions imply alot, time, change etc. etc.

Since you deny that they are anthropopathisms, you place God in the realm of time, and change. 

Call this "appealing to philosophy" or "platonic" whatever you want, but that is avoiding the issue and will not work as a counter-argument.


----------



## VanVos

Is not God immanent as well as transcendent. God condescends by way of covenant to have relationship with man and as a result has genuine emotion about His creation. i.e. love for the elect, hatred for the reprobate, anger at those who disobey His preceptive will, pleasure in those who obey His preceptive will (i.e. those in Christ) etc. 

VanVos


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by VanVos_
> Is not God immanent as well as transcendent. God condescends by way of covenant to have relationship with man and as a result has genuine emotion about His creation. i.e. love for the elect, hatred for the reprobate, anger at those who disobey His preceptive will, pleasure in those who obey His preceptive will (i.e. those in Christ) etc.
> 
> VanVos



Yes and no. True that God is immanent. But HOW is He immanent? Does that contradict his transcendence? How do you reconcile the two?

The answer solves the problem. We must never accept contraditory statements from the scriptures saying "but the Bible clearly says this, and this also." They ARE reconcileable.


----------



## cupotea

Jeff,

I took the wrong tack with you and for that I apologize.

On the point of God's absolute Sovereignty and human moral responsibility, I believe that they are compatible even though I cannot really, completely understand how. So also, since the Bible shows us a God Who has feelings yet Who is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal, immutible, etc. I must affirm that all are true and compatible though, again, I may not see how.

I think it is an error to trust too much to reason when it is being used by fallen men.

But maybe that's just the Lutheran in me.

I am learning,
Mike


----------



## Saiph

> On the point of God's absolute Sovereignty and human moral responsibility, I believe that they are compatible even though I cannot really, completely understand how. So also, since the Bible shows us a God Who has feelings yet Who is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal, immutible, etc. I must affirm that all are true and compatible though, again, I may not see how.



I agree.


God has emotions. They are simply not contingent or whimsical like ours. The Trinity shares perfect joy I imagine. Otherwise how could God be personal ? He is not a divine computer.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Attributing emotions to God in that fashion destroys the immutability of God. If God can be angry, sad, happy etc., he changes.



How do you figure? Having emotions does NOT imply change; neither does it imply the passage of time.

From all eternity, the Father loves the Son. . . .no change there.

Similarly, on a much-much-less-important level, God smiles on the sunset He created 2 weeks ago, or at one of the dancing bannana icons on this website. 

So why couldn't it be true that, from all eternity, God smiles on the sunset He created 2 weeks ago? Or, from all eternity, God laughs at the dancing bananna icon on this website?

Having an emotion toward a particular thing, from all eternity, does NOT imply change. On the contrary, it is an unchangable thing . . . a *perfect* emotion held for all of eternity toward a thing . . . an emotion that is perfectly founded on the being of God Himself, who sees all things perfectly, and has perfect emotions concerning them.

God loves the elect, from all eternity. No change there.

God hates the reprobate, from all eternity. No change there.

God is angry at sin, from all eternity. No change there.


God's emotions are immutable, just like the rest of His characteristics. The presence of emotions does NOT imply change.


----------



## Arch2k

Webster's 1828 Dicitonary

Emotion
EMO'TION, n. [L. emotio; emoveo, to move from.]

1. Literally, a *moving *  of the mind or soul; hence,any agitation of mind or excitement of sensibility.

2. In a philosophical sense, an internal motion or agitation of the mind which passes away without desire; when desire follows, the motion or agitation is called a passion.

3. Passion is the sensible effect, the feeling to which the mind is subjected,when an object of importance suddenly and imperiously demands its attention. The state of absolute passiveness, in consequence of any sudden percussion of mind, is of short duration. The strong impression, or vivid sensation, immediately produces a reaction correspondent to its nature, either to appropriate and enjoy, or avoid and repel the exciting cause. This reaction is very properly distinguished by the term emotion.

Emotions therefore, according to the genuine signification of the word, are principally and primarily applicable to the sensible changes and visible effects, which particular passions produce on the frame, in consequence of this reaction, or particular agitation of mind.


----------



## Saiph

Ezekiel's vision. Wheels *moving* within wheels.

Jeff, nobody is denying immutability. Simply because God never changes does not mean he does not move.

There was a place where creation was not. And God acted by creating it.

[Edited on 11-21-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## Saiph

> As stated in Metaph. ix, 16, action is twofold. Actions of one kind pass out to external matter, as to heat or to cut; whilst actions of the other kind remain in the agent, as to understand, to sense and to will. The difference between them is this, that the former action is the perfection not of the agent that moves, but of the thing moved; whereas the latter action is the perfection of the agent. Hence, because movement is an act of the thing in movement, the latter action, in so far as it is the act of the operator, is called its movement, by this similitude, that as movement is an act of the thing moved, so an act of this kind is the act of the agent, although movement is an act of the imperfect, that is, of what is in potentiality; while this kind of act is an act of the perfect, that is to say, of what is in act as stated in De Anima iii, 28. In the sense, therefore, in which understanding is movement, that which understands itself is said to move itself. It is in this sense that Plato also taught that God moves Himself; not in the sense in which movement is an act of the imperfect.



http://www.newadvent.org/summa/101803.htm


----------



## Saiph

Are the fruits of the Spirit God's emotions ?

Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 
Gal 5:23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. 


"The Lord your God is with you, 
He is mighty to save. 
He will take great delight in you, 
He will quiet you with His love, 
He will rejoice over you with singing."

Zephaniah 3:17 


What will the wedding banquet be like if the host is a stoic ? ?


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Ezekiel's vision. Wheels *moving* within wheels.
> 
> Jeff, nobody is denying immutability. Simply because God never changes does not mean he does not move.



Movement is the measurement of change.



> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> There was a place where creation was not. And God acted by creating it.



Where was that place?


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Are the fruits of the Spirit God's emotions ?



Of course they are. I have never denied that God has emotions _in a sense_.

The question is if emotions in God are anthropopathisms. My position is that they are. God has emotions in the same fashion that he has "eyes to see."


----------



## Saiph

Movement in the temporal and contingent creation delimits change.

In the perfect eternal divine being, movement is divine music, and the dance of the Trinity.

You are overlooking the poetry of reformed theology.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Movement in the temporal and contingent creation delimits change.
> 
> In the perfect eternal divine being, movement is divine music, and the dance of the Trinity.
> 
> You are overlooking the poetry of reformed theology.



Poetry of reformed theology?!


----------



## Saiph

There is more poetry in the bible than systematic dogma.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> There is more poetry in the bible than systematic dogma.





Anyone who does not yet see poetry in Reformed Theology, has not yet fully understood Reformed Theology.

God is a poet as well as an architect.

God is a musician as well as a mathematician.

God loves the dance and the song as well as the sermon.

God loves happiness and joy as much as deep logical thought.


Any other view of God is one-sided, and is therefore a sort of Platonic Nestorianism, if you will. 

The false dichotomies we make between logic and poetry, betwen music and math, etc., are just that - false, manmade dichotomies. 

But God cannot be divided against Himself. Truly beautiful poetry cannot be at odds with punctillious Theological precision. 

Theology, not presented beautifully, is not quite accurate theology.
And beauty, without accurate theological grounding, is not truly beautiful.


----------



## Arch2k

Jerome Zanchius, The Doctrine of Abosulte Predestination:



> *When love is predicated of God, we do not mean that he is possessed of it as if a passion or affection. * In us it is such; but if, considered in that sense, it should be ascribed to that Deity, it would be utterly subversive of the simplicity, perfection, and independency of His being. Love, therefore, when attributed to Him, signifies His eter benevolence, i.e. he everlasting will, purpose, and determination to deliver, bless, and save his people.



From The Two Wills in God, by Matthew MacMahon:



> "Anthropopathisms" deal with the psychological aspect of God which convey the various ideas which men may have concerning the "pathos" of God, or emotions seen in the Bible. Both of these are not what God possesses in actuality. But since it is impossible to comprehend the infinite God, we have been given these ideas on a relational level. Otherwise we would begine to make God too human, which is often the case. But there are verses that explicitly teach that God has "emotions" like us. Ephesians 4:30 states "And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption." In response to this passage, William Jay states, "The expression is not to be taken properly and literally, as if the Holy Spirit of God was capable of vexation or sorrow. _The divine nature is not subject to human passions_. *God's condescension is not to rob him of his glory."* Does this mean nothing is happening when the Bible says God is grieved? Does the text imply or actually mean _something?_ Ezekiel Hipkins also states the same idea as William Jay did when he asserts, "Jealousy is an affection or passion of the min, by which we are stirred up and provoked against whatsoever hinders the enjoyment of that, which we love and desire. The cause and origin of it is lov; and the effect of it is reveng. Now God, to deter the Israelites from idolatry, sets forth himself as a Strong and Jealous God, that they might be assured not to escape punishment: for he is strong, and therefore can inflict it; and he is jealous, and therefore will inflict it, if they shall dare to abuse and injure that love which he hath placed on them. This jealousy is not to be ascribed unto GOd, as if there were properly any such weak and disturbing passion in him; but only by way of accommodation adn similitude, speaking after the manner of men: so then there is not _idem affectus_, but _idem effectus_; not 'the same inward affection,' but 'the same outward effect.' And so likewise it is to be understood, when God is said to be angry, to be grieved, to repent, &c., that is, his actions towards us are like the actions of one that is angry, or grieved, or repents: although the infinite serenity of the Divine Essene is not liable to be discomposed or ruffled, by the tempests of any such like passions, as are incident to us as mutable creatures."


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I think that looking at this from the standpoint of man-as-the-image-of-God is the best way. From the standpoint of the Creator/creature distinction we recognize that everything we say about God is in a sense anthropomorphic (R.C. Sproul).

Emotions are part of our makeup. So, they are representations _on the creaturely level_ of God's nature. God is not _emotional_ as humans are emotional. He is not passionate as we are. The thing to distinguish is that we must understand what the Scripture means when it uses emotional language (that we are familiar with from our own experience) to speak of God. We have to keep in mind, as was pointed out above, that God doesn't change. Our _emotions,_ on the creaturely level, express God's various _attitudes._

To say God is *angry* with the wicked every day, is to describe in clear, unambiguous, but nevertheless human terms, the invariant, implacable, permanent _attitude _that God has toward evil sinners.

We, on the other hand--not having omniscience, having bodies that have physiological influences on our attitudes, etc.--_our emotions_ are constantly affecting our attitudes, and our attitudes are affecting our emotions. We may even have emotions that are not in keeping with our attitudes. Our attitudes can be very wrong, morally as well as factually. Just so, our emotional expression reflects our mutable attitudes.

In the final state, our emotions may not have the same mutability with respect to essentials, but we will still be embodied. We will be like Jesus, who expresed himself with human emotion in a perfect way. But in his humanity which we will share, not every attitude or emotion is felt/experienced alike at every moment. We will thus be back to a place where our emotions reflect as perfectly as a creatures' can, the righteous attitudes of God.


----------



## Saiph

Christ came down and suffered. He cried out "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me". That was real. The Spirit is grieved. God is jealous.

We may not understand those things. But we dare not deny them.
God is immutable in His nature and attributes, but that does not mean there is not a change in movement within His expression of Himself. He expresses Himself in different ways to different people at different times, but in all of those remains the same. Like all the different notes in a symphony remain music, but independant they are unique in themselves.

God is immutable but not stoic.


----------

