# God without passions



## Mr. Bultitude (Jan 7, 2014)

There have already been some good PB threads on this topic:


Figurative Descriptions of God
God is without passions

But I wanted to add to the conversation a quick little quote by C. S. Lewis, who puts it in his inimitable way:



> The passion of love is something that happens to us, as "getting wet" happens to a body: and God is exempt from that "passion" in the same way that water is exempt from "getting wet." He cannot be affected with love, because He _is_ love. To imagine that love as something less torrential or less sharp than our own temporary and derivative "passions" is a most disastrous fantasy.



_From _Miracles_, chapter 11, Christianity and "Religion"_


----------



## Leslie (Jan 7, 2014)

How anyone can accept the book of Hosea as the word of God and still believe that God is without passions is beyond me.


----------



## earl40 (Jan 7, 2014)

Leslie said:


> How anyone can accept the book of Hosea as the word of God and still believe that God is without passions is beyond me.



I understand where you are coming from. Now stand back and try to think of this in an objective way. ALL the great reformed theologians said and believed God is without passions. There is a reason for this and it is tied into the incarnation (In other words, a very important reason). For without the incarnation God could not say He empathizes with us.


----------



## Mr. Bultitude (Jan 7, 2014)

[-]Another good resource: God Without Mood Swings



> To suggest that God is unfeeling is to mangle the intent of the doctrine of impassibility. So a proper understanding of impassibility should not lead us to think God is unfeeling. But His "feelings" are never passive. They don't come and go or change and fluctuate. They are active, sovereignly-directed dispositions rather than passive reactions to external stimuli. They differ in this way from human passions.
> 
> Furthermore, God's hatred and His love, His pleasure and his grief over sin—are as fixed and immutable as any other aspect of the divine character (Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29; Malachi 3:6; James 1:17). If God appears to change moods in the biblical narrative—or in the outworking of His Providence—it is only because from time to time in His dealings with His people, He brings these various dispositions more or less to the forefront, showing us all the aspects of His character. But His love is never overwhelmed by His wrath, or vice versa. In fact, there is no real change in Him at all.


[/-]

Edit: I've been convinced by Rev. Winzer in subsequent posts that this is not, in fact, a "good resource" and is off the mark. Read on to find out why.


----------



## Matthew1344 (Jan 7, 2014)

Ok! I am in on this convo! Love it.

I have never seen this question. Because of this, if you would have asked me before I read this question "Does god have passions?"

I would have said "Yes, and his passions are infinitely greater than all of ours ever combined."

So now...I got a couple questions 
1. What exactly in Hosea are you referring to, Mary?
2. Exactly which theologians are you talking about, Earl?
3. And what does the incarnation have to do with this? I do not understand the connection? 

Sorry for not understanding what you guys are saying, and I am ready to learn!


----------



## Hamalas (Jan 7, 2014)

Leslie said:


> How anyone can accept the book of Hosea as the word of God and still believe that God is without passions is beyond me.



Mary, much like the language of "Limited Atonement" this issue is often misunderstood. It may not mean what you think it means.  One of our elders was dead set against this language when he first came across it but after reading this book saw that he really didn't have a problem with it (properly understood). Amazon.com: God without Parts: Divine Simplicity and the Metaphysics of God's Absoluteness eBook: James E. Dolezal, Paul Helm: Kindle Store if you're not wanting to wade through all of that here is an interview that would also introduce the topic: http://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc237/


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jan 7, 2014)

There is also a very good discussion of God and "passions" in Scott Oliphint's "God With Us"

God with Us: Divine Condescension and the Attributes of God: K. Scott Oliphint: 9781433509025: Amazon.com: Books


----------



## earl40 (Jan 7, 2014)

Matthew1344 said:


> 2. Exactly which theologians are you talking about, Earl?
> 3. And what does the incarnation have to do with this? I do not understand the connection?



The reformers who framed the WCF were the theologians, and the incarnation was essential for Jesus to be able to say He was tempted like us, though without sin. His temptation was all that came about from outside Himself when He identified with our weakness when He took on human flesh. Do search on God and emotions or passions here. Some very good threads.


----------



## TylerRay (Jan 7, 2014)

Matt:
Here's a great audio discussion on the impassibility of God from Reformed Forum:
http://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc237/


----------



## Matthew1344 (Jan 7, 2014)

Thanks for your input Ben and Deo! And does anyone know what Earl meant by paralleling the incarnation?


----------



## timmopussycat (Jan 7, 2014)

earl40 said:


> Matthew1344 said:
> 
> 
> > 2. Exactly which theologians are you talking about, Earl?
> ...



But didn't Jesus take our manhood into his Godhood? What implications would that have for the doctrine of impassibility?


----------



## py3ak (Jan 7, 2014)

Leslie said:


> How anyone can accept the book of Hosea as the word of God and still believe that God is without passions is beyond me.



It's quite simple, really; it requires taking all of Scripture so seriously that you attempt to understand it as an harmonious whole, instead of as a conflicting jumble of incoherent statements.


----------



## Matthew1344 (Jan 7, 2014)

So does this doctrine mean that at all times that the Godhead is infinitely angry, peaceful, loving, patient, kind, hateful, etc...?
If so does this have anything to do with God's secret will and his moral will?

Im sorry if I mixing thoughts, I am new into reformed theology.
Thank you for your patience.


----------



## earl40 (Jan 8, 2014)

timmopussycat said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew1344 said:
> ...



Jesus while here on earth in His humanity did not suffer in His divine essence. He being both God and man retains both natures then and forevermore.

Not sure what exactly you mean when you said "Jesus take our manhood* into *his Godhood".


----------



## earl40 (Jan 8, 2014)

Matthew1344 said:


> So does this doctrine mean that at all times that the Godhead is infinitely angry, peaceful, loving, patient, kind, hateful, etc...?
> If so does this have anything to do with God's secret will and his moral will?
> 
> Im sorry if I mixing thoughts, I am new into reformed theology.
> Thank you for your patience.



You will find it is only in reformed theology will you learn what this is all about. Now just as a quick note, this is a very difficult area that many (if not most) reformed believers believe in an unreformed way on the doctrine of impassibility. 

Read this sticky thread (sticky for a good reason) and see what these great teachers believed about The Lord God Almighty.


----------



## MW (Jan 8, 2014)

Mr. Bultitude said:


> Another good resource: God Without Mood Swings
> 
> 
> 
> > To suggest that God is unfeeling is to mangle the intent of the doctrine of impassibility. So a proper understanding of impassibility should not lead us to think God is unfeeling. But His "feelings" are never passive.



This is not a good resource.

Feelings are by nature passive. The word "feeling" is initially derived from sentient modes of life and comes by extension to apply to emotional states which are susceptible of change and impressions from without. By definition it cannot be applied to the nature of God who is revealed to us as "I AM THAT I AM." Any application to God must be regarded as an anthropomorphism.


----------



## MW (Jan 8, 2014)

Matthew1344 said:


> And does anyone know what Earl meant by paralleling the incarnation?



The Larger Catechism, answer 39, reflecting traditional orthodox Christology, states: "It was requisite that the Mediator should be man, that he might advance our nature, perform obedience to the law, *suffer* and make intercession for us in our nature, *have a fellow-feeling of our infirmities*; that we might receive the adoption of sons, and have comfort and access with boldness unto the throne of grace."


----------



## Mr. Bultitude (Jan 8, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> Mr. Bultitude said:
> 
> 
> > Another good resource: God Without Mood Swings
> ...



I think that's why he put the quotes around it. Many people, though, reject the doctrine out of hand because they see such anthropomorphisms in Scripture. And that's what he's getting at: impassibility does not mean that God has no wrath, no love, etc. It's just that what we think of as feelings are different with man than with God. Is this off-base?


----------



## Mr. Bultitude (Jan 8, 2014)

earl40 said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> > earl40 said:
> ...



He's referring to the Athanasian Creed: "Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God."


----------



## Matthew1344 (Jan 8, 2014)

> He's referring to the Athanasian Creed: "Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ. *One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.*"



Ok... help me out. What is the difference between what is in bold. And why does it matter?



> many (if not most) reformed believers believe in an unreformed way



Earl, is this kind of like the saying "you know it, you just dont know you know it yet."?



> Read this sticky thread (sticky for a good reason) and see what these great teachers believed about The Lord God Almighty.



Earl, what are you talking about here?



> So does this doctrine mean that at all times that the Godhead is infinitely angry, peaceful, loving, patient, kind, hateful, etc...?
> If so does this have anything to do with God's secret will and his moral will?
> 
> Im sorry if I mixing thoughts, I am new into reformed theology.
> Thank you for your patience.



And unless I do not understand you or I overlooked it, I dont think anyone answered this. It this what he means when he says God does not have passions?


----------



## earl40 (Jan 9, 2014)

Mr. Bultitude said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > timmopussycat said:
> ...



I suspected such though to use the word "into" sounds like a melding of the two natures.


----------



## earl40 (Jan 9, 2014)

Matthew1344 said:


> He's referring to the Athanasian Creed: "Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ. *One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God. Ok... help me out. What is the difference between what is in bold. And why does it matter?
> *"
> 
> 
> > My concern was his use of the word "into". Jesus did not meld his divine nature "into" His human nature. The proper way to express this is to say He "took on" a human nature. So far as reformed christians not believng this doctrine (impassibility) they are simply not believing in the way the Magistorial Reformers Teach.


----------



## Afterthought (Jan 9, 2014)

I found this thread helpful for understanding whether God has feelings and what exactly it is that God does have instead: http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/does-god-feel-blessedness-80395/


----------



## MW (Jan 9, 2014)

Mr. Bultitude said:


> I think that's why he put the quotes around it. Many people, though, reject the doctrine out of hand because they see such anthropomorphisms in Scripture. And that's what he's getting at: impassibility does not mean that God has no wrath, no love, etc. It's just that what we think of as feelings are different with man than with God. Is this off-base?



Granted, there is a degree of anthropomorphism in everything we say about God; hence the need for a theological system to explain the way we use terms. But when we speak of "anthropomorphism" in a technical and definite sense we mean that the thing predicated cannot be understood as if it were literally in God. By accepting that "feelings" are an anthropomorphism we are denying that they can properly be predicated of God. The linked article makes them a part of God's nature, and does so on the basis of very weak argumentation.

The article follows J. I. Packer's view of divine affections. Regrettably Dr. Packer has had an unhealthy influence on evangelical thinking in this area. "Affection" and "emotion," as the prefixes -a and -e indicate, can only be understood in terms of response. Traditionally, however, God is regarded as "most pure act." He is never acted upon. The terms are as inappropriate as the word "feeling."

Wrath, love, etc., are not "feelings," "affections," or "dispositions" when predicated of God. They are decreed relations and actions.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Jan 9, 2014)

Afterthought said:


> I found this thread helpful for understanding whether God has feelings and what exactly it is that God does have instead: http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/does-god-feel-blessedness-80395/



To be strict on your language here, as long as His essence is concerned, God does not "have" anything, God only _is_. As Matthew masterfully put it above, "God is most pure act." For God to have something influencing Himself would mean He is changing.


----------



## psycheives (Jan 9, 2014)

Rev Winzer, thank you for your comments. I would never have detected any error in the article on my own or seen a contradiction between the article and the Confessions. Will you please explain this a little more for us who have a hard time wrapping our heads around this?

Are you saying that feelings and affections are the same thing and can't be separated as Phil Johnson seems to do? And are you saying Johnson and Packer both somehow make feelings/affections part of God's nature? What about Dabney and Edwards? Are there any Reformed authors you might recommend on this topic for someone who wants to get a good grasp on these concepts? 

Thank you so much again. I am so glad to have heard the truth on this.




armourbearer said:


> Mr. Bultitude said:
> 
> 
> > I think that's why he put the quotes around it. Many people, though, reject the doctrine out of hand because they see such anthropomorphisms in Scripture. And that's what he's getting at: impassibility does not mean that God has no wrath, no love, etc. It's just that what we think of as feelings are different with man than with God. Is this off-base?
> ...


----------



## Matthew1344 (Jan 9, 2014)

Ya, Id love a list of old and dead reformed authors?


----------



## MW (Jan 9, 2014)

psycheives said:


> Are you saying that feelings and affections are the same thing and can't be separated as Phil Johnson seems to do? And are you saying Johnson and Packer both somehow make feelings/affections part of God's nature? What about Dabney and Edwards? Are there any Reformed authors you might recommend on this topic for someone who wants to get a good grasp on these concepts?



I am very glad to be of help but regrettably most of the material is prior to the 19th century. The statement in the Westminster Confession, "without body, parts, or passions," is carried over from the Thirty-Nine articles. One might begin with Robert Shaw's Exposition of the Confession (2.1-2), in which he quotes Gilbert Burnet approvingly, though the section is very brief. Gilbert Burnet's Exposition of the Articles is also brief. A fuller explanation can be found in Bishop William Beveridge on the Thirty-Nine Articles. All three works should be available on Google Books. For the average reader Beveridge would be the best place to begin. (Search under "without passions" to go to the relevant section.) There are some other 16-18th century works, but these will be very complicated for a reader who is not acquainted with philosophical terms.

"Feelings," affections," emotions," "dispositions," etc., are all psychologically charged terms. When using them of God there is no real difference in the terms because they all suggest a "responsiveness" to creation. Traditionally, such terms have been classified as a "condescension;" it was denied that these were really and properly in God Himself. E.g., repentance was understood to be a change in judicial procedure, not a change in God Himself. The 19th century theologians often sought to give more of a literal meaning to these "affections" by referring them to the nature of God Himself.


----------



## psycheives (Jan 10, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> One might begin with Robert Shaw's Exposition of the Confession (2.1-2), in which he quotes Gilbert Burnet approvingly, though the section is very brief. Gilbert Burnet's Exposition of the Articles is also brief. A fuller explanation can be found in Bishop William Beveridge on the Thirty-Nine Articles.
> 
> "Feelings," affections," emotions," "dispositions," etc., are all psychologically charged terms. When using them of God there is no real difference in the terms because they all suggest a "responsiveness" to creation. Traditionally, such terms have been classified as a "condescension;" it was denied that these were really and properly in God Himself. E.g., repentance was understood to be a change in judicial procedure, not a change in God Himself. The 19th century theologians often sought to give more of a literal meaning to these "affections" by referring them to the nature of God Himself.



Thanks for the list of resources. I'll check the seminary library if I can't find it online. 

So as Reformers, we see God as never changing and thus feelings/affections are anthropomorphisms? The language is God condescending to us to explain how we ought to interpret His pleasure/displeasure with our behavior? How are we to understand this as applying to scripture?

So how would we interpret these verses properly?
Genesis 5:6-7: "God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart" 
He is said to be grieved (Psalm 78:40), angry (Deuteronomy 1:37), pleased (1 Kings 3:10), joyful (Zephaniah 3:17), and moved by pity (Judges 2:18).
The Holy Spirit is grieved by our actions.


----------



## MW (Jan 10, 2014)

psycheives said:


> So how would we interpret these verses properly?
> Genesis 5:6-7: "God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart"
> He is said to be grieved (Psalm 78:40), angry (Deuteronomy 1:37), pleased (1 Kings 3:10), joyful (Zephaniah 3:17), and moved by pity (Judges 2:18).
> The Holy Spirit is grieved by our actions.



It might be best to simply quote Shaw who quotes Burnet, and this will give a concrete idea of the traditional way to approach the subject.



> 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*.”


----------



## PaulMc (Jan 10, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> Wrath, love, etc., are not "feelings," "affections," or "dispositions" when predicated of God. They are decreed relations and actions.



Matthew, if love or goodness is an attribute of God, is that any different to other "feelings" we ascribe to God, and if so in what way?


----------



## MW (Jan 10, 2014)

PaulMc said:


> Matthew, if love or goodness is an attribute of God, is that any different to other "feelings" we ascribe to God, and if so in what way?



These are not transitory or responsive like affections, emotions, or feelings, and so they are classified as "perfections." Traditional theism understands these attributes as God Himself, not something secondary which He possesses. God is love, God is goodness, God is wisdom, God is power, etc. This is usually stated by saying that these attributes are in God "essentially."


----------



## tleaf (Jan 10, 2014)

Matt, I too am no theologian.
But if we turn this discussion around, and realize that being made in the "image of God", we are partakers, to a limited extent in our carnal bodies, of His attributes, what a blessing He has bestowed on us. Or am I off the mark?

Rev. Winzer, thoughts?


----------



## MW (Jan 10, 2014)

tleaf said:


> But if we turn this discussion around, and realize that being made in the "image of God", we are partakers, to a limited extent in our carnal bodies, of His attributes, what a blessing He has bestowed on us. Or am I off the mark?
> 
> Rev. Winzer, thoughts?



Calvin's thoughts might be better appreciated:



> Here we are not left to conjecture what resemblance this image bears to its archetype. We easily learn it from the Apostle. (Colossians 3:10.) When he enjoins us to "put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him who created him," he clearly shows what this image is, or wherein it consists; as he also does when he says, (Ephesians 4:24,) "Put on the new man, who has been created after God in knowledge and true holiness." When we would comprehend all these things, in one word we say, that man, in respect of spirit, was made partaker of the wisdom, justice, and goodness of God... let us hold the image of God in man to be that which can only have its seat in the Spirit.


----------



## tleaf (Jan 10, 2014)

Much better said, thank you.

My point being, how awesome it is when we do put on the new man. If we were to dwell on that more, how our perspective would change!


----------



## PaulMc (Jan 11, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> These are not transitory or responsive like affections, emotions, or feelings, and so they are classified as "perfections." Traditional theism understands these attributes as God Himself, not something secondary which He possesses. God is love, God is goodness, God is wisdom, God is power, etc. This is usually stated by saying that these attributes are in God "essentially."



Thank you, and yes that is my understanding. I think I misunderstood something you were getting at in your last post but it is making more sense now.


----------



## earl40 (Jan 11, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> These are not transitory or responsive like affections, emotions, or feelings, and so they are classified as "perfections." Traditional theism understands these attributes as God Himself, not something secondary which He possesses. God is love, God is goodness, God is wisdom, God is power, etc. This is usually stated by saying that these attributes are in God "essentially."



This In my most humble opinion nails it. For if one thinks of God as being hate or wrathful outside of when He created time and the elements in all His creation it is easy too see that God in His divine essence did not posses the "perfections" of hate or wrath before He created.


----------

