# Does God Have Emotions?



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Jan 9, 2009)

Brothers, 

I'm preparing an article on Genesis 6:6 and divine emotivity. Below is a brief treatment of the text and a concise summary of some of the theological reflection (mainly Reformed) on the question of divine emotivity. If you read what I've posted below, you'll note (1) that I'm not entirely satisfied with the way Reformed thinkers (and others) have treated this subject and (2) that I've not completed the article. I think I have a general idea of where I want to go, but I thought I'd post the first part of my article in order to solicit feedback and constructive criticism. This, in turn, will help me in preparing the second half of the article. (Note: I did not include references to works cited because I thought that would make the post too cumbersome. However, I'm willing to provide such should anyone be interested.)

*Can Sinners Break God's Heart?*

One Old Testament scholar aptly depicts the spread of human sin after the fall as “an avalanche.” This avalanche accelerates to such staggering proportions that God is forced to visit the world in a catastrophic flood-judgment (7:6-24). But prior to the judgment itself, God evaluates the human condition (6:5) and issues a judgment oracle (6:7). Between the divine evaluation and oracle, Moses inserts a striking revelation: “The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain” (6:6, NIV). Moses isn’t content to portray sin’s sway by merely dissecting man’s rotten heart, but he provides a staggering disclosure of God’s broken heart. Using emotionally charged vocabulary, Moses depicts Yahweh as feeling both _regret_ for creating humanity and also _heart-deep pain_ because of the rebellion of his images. In response to man’s change from _very good_ (1:31) to _very evil_ (6:5), Yahweh genuinely feels a mixture of disappointment and anger, which in turn produces a profound heart-felt sorrow, something with which any reader who has felt the pangs of the curse can to some degree identify. God’s emotive reaction to the proliferation of human sin serves not only as the literary connection between his inquest and doom oracle. It also serves to remind the reader that, to use of words of Franz Delitzsch, “he does not decide on the extinction of he world with cold indifference. The divine judgment and the divine pain are but two sides the external and the internal of one and the same reality.” 

In their effort to preserve God’s transcendence, sovereignty, and immutability, some Reformed commentators and theologians urge a different reading. They dissuade the reader from interpreting God’s emotive response literally. John Calvin, for example, is quick to assert, 
The repentance, which is here ascribed to God, does not properly belong to him, but has reference to our understanding of him. For since we cannot comprehend him as he is, it is necessary that, for our sake, he should, in a certain sense, transform himself…. Certainly God _is not sorrowful or sad_; but remains for ever like himself in his celestial and happy repose: yet, because it could not otherwise be known how great is God’s hatred and detestation of sin, therefore the Spirit accommodates himself to our capacity (emphasis added). ​So, according to Calvin, God’s transcendent and immutable condition of bliss precludes the possibility that he might experience such emotive responses as sorrow or anger. Thus, the reader should interpret the attribution of an emotional response in God as an “accommodation” to finite human capacity. Calvin elaborates on this use of accommodative language in his Institutes:
For because our weakness does not attain to his exalted state, the description of him that is given to us must be accommodated to our capacity so that we may understand it. Now the mode of accommodation is for him to represent himself to us not as he is in himself, but as he seems to us. Although he is beyond all disturbance of mind, yet he testifies that he is angry toward sinners. Therefore _whenever we hear that God is angered, we ought not to imagine any emotion in him_, but rather to consider that this expression has been taken from our own human experience; because God, whenever he is exercising judgment, exhibits the appearance of one kindled and angered. So we ought not to understand anything else under the word ‘repentance’ than change of action, because men are wont by changing their action to testify that they are displeased with themselves (emphasis added). ​Calvin’s line of reasoning seems to run as follows: the attribution of emotional states to God has reference not to _the inward feelings _that you and I normally associate with emotions. Rather, it has to do with _the outward actions_ that such feelings in us normally provoke. Feelings of sadness, grief, compassion, joy, or anger usually move us to act in certain ways. For example, if we feel compassion towards someone in need, we’ll be motivated to help alleviate his or her need if possible. If we feel angry towards someone who has wronged us, we’ll seek vindication or redress. Like you and me, God acts in certain ways towards others. He shows kindness to the needy, and he executes judgment on the ungodly. But unlike us, God’s _actions_ are not _the reactions of genuine emotions_. Instead, divine emotions serve as a literary device—an "anthropopathism," as some call it—that points to _the effect_ rather than _the cause_. 

Many Reformed commentators and theologians have followed Calvin’s view of divine emotivity. Francis Turretin, one of Calvin’s successors, articulates this perspective with great precision:
Repentance is attributed to God after the manner of men (_antrhropopathos_) but must be understood after the manner of God (_theoprepos_), not with respect to his counsel, but to the event; not in reference to his will, but to the thing willed; not to affection and internal grief, but to the effect and external work because he does what a penitent man usually does. If repentance concerning the creation of man (which he could not undo) is ascribed to God (Gen 6:6, 7), it must be understood not pathetically (_pathetikos_), but energetically (_energetikos_). Although he could not by a non-creation undo what he had done, yet by a destruction he could produce change. ​William Ames, John Owen, Stephen Charnock, John Gill, John Dick, and James Henley Thornwell argue similarly. This viewpoint appears to be at least part of the rational for a phrase found in the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Savoy Declaration, and the 1689 London Baptist Confession, all of which affirm that God is “without body, parts, or _passions_” (emphasis added). Richard Muller, an expert in post-Reformation dogmatics, seems to confirm this when he writes, 
Since a passion has its foundation or origin _ad extra_ [without] and its terminus _ad intra_ [within], it cannot be predicated of God and, in fact, fails to correspond in its dynamic with the way that God knows. An affection or virtue, by way of contrast, has its foundation or source _ad intra_ and terminates _ad extra_, corresponding with the pattern of operation of the divine communicable attributes and, in particular, with the manner of the divine knowing. This understanding of affections and passions corresponds, moreover, with the etymology of the terms: an _af-_ or _ad-fectio_ from _adficio_, to exert an influence on something—in other words, an influence directed toward, not a result from, something; whereas _passio_, from _patior_, is a suffering or enduring of something—it can refer to an occurrence or a phenomenon and even to a disease. ​It’s important to note that Calvin and Reformed theology did not hatch this construal of divine impassibility. One finds similar analyses in the writings Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas. Indeed, one may find analogous reasoning among some Greek philosophers. Although the nature of deity, as depicted in Greek philosophy, differed significantly from classical Christian theology on a number of points (e.g., the Trinity), it did at points find semblance, particularly in an emphasis on a kind of transcendence that precluded the proper attribution of emotion. For instance, the Epicurean Lucretius (96-55 B.C.) opined, 
For the nature of gods must ever in itself of necessity enjoy immortality together with supreme repose, far removed and withdrawn from our concerns; since exempt from every pain, exempt from all dangers, strong in its own resources, not wanting aught of us, it is neither gained by favors nor moved by anger. ​Lucretius’ phrase “supreme repose” sounds similar to Calvin’s depiction of God’s “celestial and happy repose.” Such transcendent bliss is thought to be incompatible with emotional responses, which seem to imply psychological changes within God’s heart. As the great Puritan theologian John Owen argues, 
That which is inconsistent with absolute blessedness and all-sufficiency is not to be ascribed to God; to do so casts him down from his excellency. But can he be blessed, is he all-sufficient, who is tossed up and down with hope, joy, fear, sorrow, repentance, anger, and the like?” ​In sum, the classical view of God would seem to preclude divine emotivity. Emotions attributed to God in the Bible are to be interpreted metaphorically because a literal interpretation, so it is argued, would undermine divine transcendence, sovereignty, and immutability. 

Where does this leave our interpretation of Genesis 6:6? A literal reading of the 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 shall 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 _feels _(6:6). God’s remorse and pain, we are told, refers not 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. “It is only by the use of such human expressions,” writes Augustine, “that Scripture can make its many kinds of readers whom it wants to help to feel, as it were, at home. Only thus can Scripture frighten the proud and arouse the slothful, provoke inquiries and provide food for the convinced.” Hence, the God of Genesis 6:6 is not “profoundly moved.” On the contrary, he is, to borrow the title of a popular song, “comfortably numb.” Accordingly, the reader should be advised,
_There is no pain you are misreading;
It’s just God’s mode of accommodation.
When it says, “feels,” it means, “behaves”; 
His heart’s “moved,” but that’s not what it’s saying.
Has God an eye? Or has he an ear?
Or hands? Come on, you dumb baboon!
He’s too transcendent to descend,
To grieve, to feel the plight of man.
Despite the load of evil done,
God shall remain comfortably numb. 
_​Admittedly, my satirical lyric betrays a degree of dissatisfaction with much of the foregoing portrayal of divine impassibility. Let me quickly affirm my conviction that God is genuinely impassible, _when properly defined_. In my view, an affirmation of God’s supreme authority (transcendence), absolute control (sovereignty), and perfect nature (immutability) does not preclude his possession of real emotional faculties, such as the inspired writers of Scripture ascribe to him in abundance. 

So, brothers, what are your thoughts, suggestions, or caveats? 

Gratefully,


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 9, 2009)

WCF 2:1 - "I. There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, *without body, parts, or passions*; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty."

I guess you would be more inclined to use the LBC 1689 - Chapter 2:1 - "The Lord our God is but one only living and true God; whose subsistence is in and of himself, infinite in being and perfection; whose essence cannot be comprehended by any but himself; a most pure spirit, invisible, *without body, parts, or passions*, who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; who is immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, every way infinite, most holy, most wise, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will for his own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek him, and withal most just and terrible in his judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty."

Maybe get some commentaries on the Divines view of this. Probably help to understand where they are coming from.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Jan 9, 2009)

Thanks, Andrew. I am a Baptist and, therefore, subscribe to the 1689. But I think the two paragraphs you've cited are nearly identical. I've looked at about 20 commentaries, searched about 15 theological works, and read several articles. If you have any works in view that address this topic and that you believe are helpful, feel free to recommend them.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jan 9, 2009)

*Emotion*

Dr. Gonzales,

The question of highest priority is, "What is emotion?"

Once this is defined, then, depending on the definition in use, I would answer accordingly.

Here is one definition of emotion:



> e⋅mo⋅tion   /ɪˈmoʊʃən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [i-moh-shuhn] Show IPA Pronunciation
> 
> –noun 1. an affective state of consciousness in which joy, sorrow, fear, hate, or the like, is experienced, as distinguished from cognitive and volitional states of consciousness.
> 2. any of the feelings of joy, sorrow, fear, hate, love, etc.
> ...



Note, that the definition, as given here:

emotion - Definitions from Dictionary.com

is basically reactive. Something else causes the reaction within the being having the emotions. Such a person is "moved" from without. They are affected by outside influences.

According to this definition, strictly speaking, God is never moved from outside of Himself. He never reacts. He is never overcome by forces He can't control, and therefore, God is not emotional. 

If one asks, does God care about things? I would be willing to heartily assent that God cares about everything, in that all things are part of His mind, and His will worked out in time and history. If someone wanted to call this emotion, I wouldn't quibble. However, as defined above, God has "no passions". He is not swayed by outside forces. He is not emotive, as His creatures are.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## cih1355 (Jan 9, 2009)

God loves His elect even though there was nothing in the elect that caused or moved God to love His elect. There was nothing outside of God that caused God to love His elect. If having an emotion means to be moved from outside of oneself, then the love of God is not an emotion.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 9, 2009)

It seems to me that you've presented other systematic approaches that take elaborate presentations to undergird and explain regarding the nature of emotion, present a fairly brief passage in which you say: "The text seems to clearly indicate that God experiences these emotions..." and then you end it.

I just don't see how this is a comprehensive treatment of the subject. This question is both systematic and exegetical and not one or the other. I think you need to do the leg work to explain how God is not discursively learning something if He _reacts_ emotionally to an event. The issue about God having passions doesn't mean that He is static or doesn't have love, hate, jealousy, anger, etc. The issue is that He doesn't learn about things and experiences time all at once. He knows the beginning from the end and has decreed all. I think we need to be careful that our discussions of God do not merely make Him a much bigger and smarter version of ourselves. 

Calvin said it best when he noted that God lisps to us and I don't think any exegete would disagree that the language reads much like the way we emote but there are also systematic reasons to insist that this is anthropopathetic language.


----------



## CharlieJ (Jan 9, 2009)

Christusregnat said:


> According to this definition, strictly speaking, God is never moved from outside of Himself. He never reacts. He is never overcome by forces He can't control, and therefore, God is not emotional.



I'm not so sure everything in this paragraph is correct. Let me make a parallel to the decree of God. There is one decree of God, eternal and exhaustive in scope, that is the ultimate cause of every happening. But, the Bible (and Reformed theology) also teaches secondary or proximate causes. A man goes to hell ultimately b/c of God's decree of reprobation, but the decree uses the proximal cause of the man's sin and rebellion against God.

So, does God ever "react"? He reacts to sin with judgment. He reacts to faith with justification. He reacts to obedience with pleasure and blessing. All of these things are ultimately caused by God's eternal decree, but within time, I don't think it's problematic to say that human actions can be proximal causes of some of God's actions, especially when God Himself has told us He will act in a certain way. 

If it is so with God's actions, then I don't see why God's emotions should be thought of differently. If God becomes "emotional," it is His own proximal means of fulfilling His decree, which ultimately originates entirely from within Himself.

So, Dr. Bob, I think that you may be right in your analysis. Of course, I'm sure you would agree with Adam (and me) that God does not act capriciously, or as a result of being impassioned.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 9, 2009)

God's "emotions" are always tied to His will. 

He does not have "emotions" like we think of them, for we are moved by emotions and emotions move our wills, instead of vice versa, and for this reason the WCF and other confessions speak of God not having any passions, though Scripture speaks of him being grieved, angered, etc, things which we think of as emotions (and which ARE emotions depending on how we define emotion, but always preceding from the will of God and never moving God to "react").


----------



## py3ak (Jan 9, 2009)

Just a few points, Dr. Gonzalez.

1. _Why_ are you dis-satisfied? Your lyrics would seem to suggest that you are rather vigorously dis-satisfied, whereas the quotes you gave seemed to me very refreshing and wonderful.

2. How do you define God as being passive in any sense (which _feelings_ or _passions_ involve) without falling into the pit of attributing potentiality to the one who is _actus purus_? You say that on the classical view "God's actions are not the reactions of genuine emotions". Of course not. Since when is God _reacting_ to anything? Has not His decree determined all? Is not His will the highest law and deepest ground of all else? How could the _primary actor_ be _reacting_?

3. God's _thinking_ is also unlike ours. He does not come to know things or reason them out, but knows them all immediately and entirely. So in that sense it is inaccurate, is it not, to say that we have a God who _thinks_, but not one who feels? In both cases there are ways of speaking about God which are accommodated to our human capacity, but where we understand that our painful ratiocinations and our half-chemical emotings are paltry reflections of the grand reality of God. Probably something similar could be said of His working, since He is working all things, but we tend to notice only certain outcroppings.

4. Probably without body and without passions tend to go together to some extent. If you were disembodied and had no hormones, endorphins, etc., to make you _feel_ in your hands and stomach the different emotions that come our way your intellectual responses to great tragedy or hideous embarrasment might be quite different.

5. W.G.T. Shedd points out that anger in God does not make Him unhappy, because it is not something He suffers: it is His active self-disposition towards sin. That seems to me like quite a coherent account of the anthropopathic language of Scripture, though I would be delighted for those with greater knowledge to expound on this point.

6. Although Lactantius' _De Ira_ in translation rather left me wondering why he was valued so highly for the elegance of his language, I think it is something of a wellspring to the classical tradition.

7. You say that this all leaves God "comfortably numb" (I confess I have no idea to what you are alluding there). I, on the contrary, would draw the lesson that all of this leaves God "blessed for ever", infinitely joyful. I doubt that I could recommend anything on the subject that you haven't already read, but I must admit I can't fathom how out of the glad doctrine that God is _unaffected_ by humanity one could come to think that He is frigid or boring. I thought C.S. Lewis had pretty much crushed all that sort of thinking in _The Great Divorce_.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 9, 2009)

CharlieJ said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> > According to this definition, strictly speaking, God is never moved from outside of Himself. He never reacts. He is never overcome by forces He can't control, and therefore, God is not emotional.
> ...



Did God react to Samson's desire for a Timnite woman? I think you need to read a bit more carefully God's relationship to our sin. Our sin is included in the decree of God. He may judge it but He does not learn of it and react to it. Even Arminians have to admit that God creates with a full foreknowledge of all rebellion and creates anyway. The Confessions understand, with the Scriptures, that even man's sin is under the Sovereign control of God.

Your reading of primary and secondary causality is important in understanding that proximate causality is real causality and that this is not an occasionalist universe but, that being said, it also states that secondary causes are _established_ in the decree of God. That is not the language of reaction.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 9, 2009)

God Without Mood Swings


----------



## Christusregnat (Jan 9, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> God Without Mood Swings



Thanks for sharing this Pergatory! Very good.

Adam


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 9, 2009)

I have a fascination with this subject and I am glad we are discussing this on the PB.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Jan 9, 2009)

Wow! Just got back from watching "Kung Fu Panda," and found lots of excellent input. Thanks, guys. Don't know exactly where to begin. 

Adam, wisely, has asked me to define what I mean by "emotion" or "feeling." The text I cited uses two verbs that together convey an emotive response to something _ad extra_, that is, exterior to the subject experiencing the feeling. The first Hebrew verb translated "grieved" (NIV) or "was sorry" (ESV) is _nhm_, which can mean (1) to feel emotional sorrow or regret, (2) to be comforted or to console oneself (3), to repudiate a past course of action, or (4) to change one’s mind or to deviate from. I believe the first meaning is correct since the juxtaposed clause, “and his heart was filled with pain,” serves an explanatory function (see C. F. Keil, The Pentateuch, 1:139-40). 

The second verb translated "filled with pain" (NIV) or "grieved" (ESV) is _'tsb. _This verb 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 both emotional as well as physical dimensions (3:16, 17). So I agree with Adam that the qualities or states predicated of God in this verse are basically reactive. Something else causes the reaction within the being having the emotions. Such a person is "moved" from without. They are affected by outside influences.​My question is why can't we interpret Moses' depiction of God as a psychological _reaction_ to human sin? God mentally evaluates man's sin (6:5), emotional reacts to that evaluation (6:6), and then portends appropriate action (6:7). 

I agree with Rich and Ruben who properly distinguish human knowledge from divine knowledge. God does not acquire and process knowledge in the same way humans do. Accordingly, human knowledge is only _analogous_ not _univocal _to divine knowledge. Why can't we view human emotion, which is part of the _imago Dei_, as an analogue of divine emotivity? True, as Ruben points out, without body and without passions tend to go together to some extent. If you were disembodied and had no hormones, endorphins, etc., to make you _feel_ in your hands and stomach the different emotions that come our way your intellectual responses to great tragedy or hideous embarrasment might be quite different.​But the human cognitive process involves a physical brain and many of the same chemicals as does the human emotive faculty. Yet we do not interpret the many attributions of mental capacity to God as "anthroponouisms." 

Certainly, human emotivity and divine emotivity differ in some ways. This is especially true after the fall. Thus, as Pergamum suggests, God doesn't have "mood swings" as fallen men do. But, it seems to me, human emotions (apart from their fallenness) are, in some ways, analogous to what is predicated of God. Otherwise, the metaphor (or "anthropopathism") would seem bereft of meaning. 

One common objection, which a few of you pointed out and which a number of the commentators and theologians I read noted, is the seeming inconsistency of _a divine reaction_ to an event within history with the fact that _God has decreed_ all history. In other words, feelings or emotions in humans often imply a kind of passivity in which we react inwardly to outward stimuli. But if God is the ultimate cause and conditioner of all created reality, then how can we conceive of him "reacting" to created reality? To be more specific, how can God react emotively to human evil when it was he himself who ordained that evil from eternity? 

My present answer is that God decreed everything: he decreed the proliferation of human evil together with his judicial assessment of that evil (6:5). Moreover, he decreed his prophetic doom-oracle (6:7) and the redemptive/punitive judgment that followed (7:6-24). What exegetical or theological roadblock hinders us from viewing God's emotive reaction to human sin (6:6) as another outworking of his decree? Here I'm inclined to agree with Charlie when he writes,If it is so with God's actions [i.e., that they were caused by God's eternal decree], then I don't see why God's emotions should be thought of differently. If God becomes "emotional," it is His own proximal means of fulfilling His decree, which ultimately originates entirely from within Himself.​In this line of reasoning, God remains _the ultimate Actor_ within _the matrix of eternity_ while also functioning as _the divine Reactor_ within _the matrix of human history_. I am not yet persuaded that we must approach the matter in an "either ... or" fashion. 

Finally, I agree with Rich that the answer to this "question is both systematic and exegetical and not one or the other." Accordingly, I've not only consulted nearly every commentary on Genesis 6:6, but I've read plenty of theological works. I do agree, as I said above, that God is impassible in the sense that _he's not ultimately passive_, but, on the contrary, _he's the first cause_. But I'm not satisfied with what appears to be, at least to me, a sometimes onesided treatment of the subject in many commentaries and theological works. Their portrait seems to leave us with a God who is, to use the catchy phrase, "comfortably numb" to human evil and misery. 

Thanks again, men, for the helpful interaction. And thanks Pergamum for the link to the article. I've bookmarked it and will try to read it tomorrow. 

Warm regards,


----------



## staythecourse (Jan 9, 2009)

Since Jesus wept, and he was God personified, how do we deal with this obvious display of grief?

And we can't say the Man wept but God did not. No. God wept through the Son who is God.

The thing that caught my attention was the sense that the OT God is different from the NT God in Christ. There is the REAL God in the OT at creation, all powerful, unmoved by emotion, and then the piddly Jesus who has emotions in the NT. Jesus' weeping confirms God has emotions or else he was acting (which would be deception and therefore has to be tossed)


----------



## py3ak (Jan 9, 2009)

Dr. Gonzalez, I don't mean to be pertinacious, but I thought your response rather slid over some of the points I made (#s 1,2,3,5,7). I should like to render explicit that I think your option of "emotionally reactive" or "comfortably numb" is more of a false dichotomy than God as fully self-actualized vs. God as containing potentiality in some way.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Jan 9, 2009)

py3ak said:


> 1. _Why_ are you dis-satisfied? Your lyrics would seem to suggest that you are rather vigorously dis-satisfied, whereas the quotes you gave seemed to me very refreshing and wonderful.



Ruben, 

I admit that the phrase "comfortably numb" and the reworked lyrics that are derived from that song by that title (Pink Floyd) are attention grabbers. I also confess they betray my dissatisfaction with some of the theological discussion I've read. "Vigorously" is probably too strong. In fact, I do believe Calvin and many of the other Reformed writers I've cited or read are highlighting an important truth. Namely, God is absolutely sovereign and the first cause of everything. It seems to me, however, that these writers leave something out of the "everything." They include creation and the fall. They include God's revelatory and saving acts in history. But they seem to exclude divine _inward reactions_ (i.e., feelings/emotions) to evil or good. Since feelings are a facet of the ethical nature of the _imago Dei_, then shouldn't we expect such emotively ethical responses to characterize the Archetype himself when he covenantally relates to the world he's created? 

Your servant,


----------



## py3ak (Jan 9, 2009)

Not to be difficult, but I don't think so. It seems backward and perilous to me to reason from man to God. Is that not rather the point of calling certain attributes _incommunicable_? It reminds us of the disparity.

I will say that I felt as you do some time ago. I can't help feeling that my suggestions may seem rather jejune, given that you are far more well-read than I, but for what it's worth, what brought me over that dis-satisfaction initially was Shedd's treatment of the matter in his dogmatic theology, and wrapping my head around the great blessing it is to know that God is not influenced like I am: without passions, He is infinitely stable. Further it was helpful to me when I got a little grasp on archetypal vs. ectypal theology, began to see that God _wills precisely because He wills it: the divine willing is the divine nature itself_, and realized that though we speak in apophatic terms, divine impassibility is the way we affirm a tremendous positive reality of the eternal blessedness, the unalterable joy of God. Whose heart would not sink under the weight of gladness in conceiving of God as wholly self-determined?

Van Mastricht put it like this (as quoted by Heppe): "From the primitive attributes so far recounted three derivates emerge: omnisufficiency and perfection by which He is most perfectly sufficient unto Himself and to all, majesty and glory by which He is as such most worthy to be praised and made famous, and blessedness by which He is most happy (felicissimus) in every detail. The perfection and sufficiency which we claim for God is regarded as not limited to a fixed genus or to any fixed use which suits any creatures and excludes privative imperfection alone, but as universal, including every good, sufficient in every category and in every man for everything up to infinite beatitude, which thereby rules out all negative imperfection."


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Jan 9, 2009)

py3ak said:


> Dr. Gonzalez, I don't mean to be pertinacious, but I thought your response rather slid over some of the points I made (#s 1,2,3,5,7). I should like to render explicit that I think your option of "emotionally reactive" or "comfortably numb" is more of a false dichotomy than God as fully self-actualized vs. God as containing potentiality in some way.



Sorry I didn't respond to all your points, brother. Not intentional. Just so much for me to consider at one time. And it's late!  I've already addressed you first point, but I'll make some brief comments on points 2, 3, 5, and 7. You wrote,



> 2. How do you define God as being passive in any sense (which _feelings_ or _passions_ involve) without falling into the pit of attributing potentiality to the one who is _actus purus_? You say that on the classical view "God's actions are not the reactions of genuine emotions". Of course not. Since when is God _reacting_ to anything? Has not His decree determined all? Is not His will the highest law and deepest ground of all else? How could the _primary actor_ be _reacting_?



I'm actually trying to define God as "responsive" or "reactive." You and I respond and react to things and events that are sometimes beyond our control. This is, of course, not true about God. God decreed Adam's fall; decreed the proliferation of human sin; and decreed the flood-judgment. So I'm not denying that God is the Author of the story. But he is also one of the actors in the story. And as he plays his part (which part he decreed from the beginning along with our parts), he "reacts" and "responds" to people, things, and events outside himself. 



> 3. God's _thinking_ is also unlike ours. He does not come to know things or reason them out, but knows them all immediately and entirely. So in that sense it is inaccurate, is it not, to say that we have a God who _thinks_, but not one who feels? In both cases there are ways of speaking about God which are accommodated to our human capacity, but where we understand that our painful ratiocinations and our half-chemical emotings are paltry reflections of the grand reality of God. Probably something similar could be said of His working, since He is working all things, but we tend to notice only certain outcroppings



I think I've already touched on this point in my general response to all above. I agree that human knowledge is not univocal to divine knowledge. We are but analogous of God. But that fact doesn't constrain me to interpret passages portraying God's mental capacities as mere metaphors. Similarly, the fact that God's feelings are acquired, experienced, and expressed in manners somewhat different and more complex than human feelings doesn't incline me to discount their reality as portrayed in Scripture. 



> 5. W.G.T. Shedd points out that anger in God does not make Him unhappy, because it is not something He suffers: it is His active self-disposition towards sin. That seems to me like quite a coherent account of the anthropopathic language of Scripture, though I would be delighted for those with greater knowledge to expound on this point.



Shedd's explanation is not entirely helpful to me. The Bible describes God's "self-disposition towards sin" as displeasure, anger, wrath, and hatred. Thes are emotive responses and are the opposite of "happy." To say that God is angry with the wicked every day is to say that God is "unhappy" with the wicked, isn't it? As I suggested above, God's emotive faculties are immensely complex. Therefore, I believe it's possible for God to be perfectly happy with himself, his plan, and his providence while at the same time be righteously unhappy with human sinners. 



> 7. You say that this all leaves God "comfortably numb" (I confess I have no idea to what you are alluding there). I, on the contrary, would draw the lesson that all of this leaves God "blessed for ever", infinitely joyful. I doubt that I could recommend anything on the subject that you haven't already read, but I must admit I can't fathom how out of the glad doctrine that God is _unaffected_ by humanity one could come to think that He is frigid or boring. I thought C.S. Lewis had pretty much crushed all that sort of thinking in _The Great Divorce_.



"Comfortably Numb" is the title to a famous Pink Floyd song. The lyrics I wrote are also intended crudely to mimic some of the lyrics of that song. I think the phrase sounds close to Calvin's description of God's "celestial and happy repose" unaffected by human sin. Of course, I don't deny that God enjoys "happy repose." But Calvin's use of the phrase seems to portray God as _untouched_ by human sin, as _apathetic_ to human misery. True, God is "unaffected" by human sin in the sense that it cannot frustrate his plan or deprive him of his self-delight. But Genesis 6:6 and a hundred other texts portray God as evaluating human actions and responding emotively. That these divine emotions are a mere metonymy, viz., the cause for the effect, seems unlikely and is, in my mind, an unnecessary circumlocution of the plain meaning of the text. 

Your servant,

-----Added 1/9/2009 at 11:11:09 EST-----



py3ak said:


> Not to be difficult, but I don't think so. It seems backward and perilous to me to reason from man to God.



John Calvin writes,
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' [Acts 17:28]. For, quite clearly, the mighty gifts with which we are endowed are hardly from ourselves; indeed, our very being is nothing but subsistence in the one God. Then, by these benefits shed like dew from heaven upon us, we are led as by rivulets to the spring itself (Institutes, I, 1.1).​


> Is that not rather the point of calling certain attributes _incommunicable_? It reminds us of the disparity.



I would view God's emotive responses primarily as expressions of his communicable attributes. 



> I will say that I felt as you do some time ago. I can't help feeling that my suggestions may seem rather jejune, given that you are far more well-read than I, but for what it's worth, what brought me over that dis-satisfaction initially was Shedd's treatment of the matter in his dogmatic theology, and wrapping my head around the great blessing it is to know that God is not influenced like I am: without passions, He is infinitely stable.



I can agree that God is not influenced like we are and that he is perfectly stable. This is a comforting truth! BTW, you seems to be well-read, and don't overestimate my knowledge. There's still plenty of books in my library (and in the bookstore) I have yet to read!



> Further it was helpful to me me when I got a little grasp on archetypal vs. ectypal theology, began to see that God _wills precisely because He wills it: the divine willing is the divine nature itself_, and realized that though we speak in apophatic terms, divine impassibility is the way we affirm a tremendous positive reality of the eternal blessedness, the unalterable joy of God. Whose heart would not sink under the weight of gladness in conceiving of God as wholly self-determined?



As I said in my initial post, I do affirm elements of divine impassibility and, like you, believe these elements to be a tremendously satisfying reality.

-----Added 1/9/2009 at 11:12:45 EST-----



staythecourse said:


> Since Jesus wept, and he was God personified, how do we deal with this obvious display of grief?
> 
> And we can't say the Man wept but God did not. No. God wept through the Son who is God.
> 
> The thing that caught my attention was the sense that the OT God is different from the NT God in Christ. There is the REAL God in the OT at creation, all powerful, unmoved by emotion, and then the piddly Jesus who has emotions in the NT. Jesus' weeping confirms God has emotions or else he was acting (which would be deception and therefore has to be tossed)



Bryan,

Nice to put a face to the name. Good to see you on the discussion list.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 13, 2009)

For all the sophistication in your language and the obvious training you have in Biblical languages, it is obvious to this unsophisticated Marine the following:

1. You use the exegesis of Hebrew verbs that, when used of humans, imply a certain emotional reactive state.
2. Apply this to God on the basis that analogy flows from human to Divine (what's true of me must be true of God because I'm His image bearer).
3. Re-cast Systematic Theology in light of your profound insights into the Divine emotions of God offering that God both decrees and reacts and that all these other Reformed Systematic Theologians of the past are to be dismissed on this as dissatisfying based on your insights into the text.

Thanks for the offer but I'm not buying. At the heart of it is your insistence of number 1. You haven't demonstrated that your insistence about the mere nature of a term when applied to humans is enough to overthrow centuries of sound systematic theological wrestling on the subject. Quite frankly, to me it reveals a profound intellectual hubris that you think you're of the caliber of systematic theologian to even attempt to take on the men you're taking on the basis of the meaning of verbs. I've heard the _exact_ same arguments from Open Theists. Why should I buy it from you?

This forum has many more lay persons than scholars and I don't like folks, wearing the cloak of a Reformed teachers, spreading heterodoxy. Denying impassibility is a gateway drug (since you're fond of Pink Floyd) into a denial of other orthodox doctrines. I hope this post does more than create anger that I disallow the open denial of certain doctrines for discussion. What I fear is that you'll look back at this post a decade from now and recall how your "break through" was the key to your abandonment of a host of other "dis-satisfying" doctrines, like God's foreknowledge, that you once thought were core to the Christian faith.

-----Added 1/13/2009 at 06:27:15 EST-----

I want to publicly apologize to Dr. Bob Gonzalez for remarks above that were unnecessarily ad hominem.

At the same time, I want to make something clear about the nature of this board. We discussed this at length in the back-channel of the board.

I think one of the Admins probably put it best when he noted the nature of the board this way: "This board is not designed for theological innovation, but more like "rehearsing the battles of 400 years ago." We're out of touch, and proud of it."

I'm very conscious of the fact that many people read this board. Sometimes you can search for a particular term on Google and the Puritanboard pops up within hours of a post being put up.

I recognize that certain forumulations have gained a certain foothold within the Reformed camp. They don't have a good Confessional pedigree but they have enough luminaries that have taught them that they gain a certain: "If you deny that point then you're disagreeing with Hodge..." kind of appeal to them.

Frankly, at the end of the day, if we gave into every "this Reformed guy wrote this" as acceptably "within bounds" then there would be no boundaries.

I think a certain level of intellectual curiosity is good but, it seems to me, that gone are the days when a Seminary can be known for teaching the same "old truths" for generations because you're not interesting in theological circles unless some new discovery is made about the nature of God.

I think Rev. Winzer struck a chord with me once when he ironically quoted _Amazing Grace_ (as an EP advocate) and noted that, when we've been there ten thousand years, we're not going to be re-formulating Truth.

Perhaps it's because I work in a very chaotic world where national events cause my vocation to have to constantly think on its feet about an ever-changing threat environment that I take comfort that God never changes and, consequently, neither does His Truth.

If you feel the need to push the envelope on core theological doctrines here then you're likely to find the place unwelcome for those particular discussions. Yes, I know, to many that makes us seem no different than "them uneducated fundies who care more about the Confessions than the Bible". All I can tell you is that I can assure you that I read the Scriptures every day, never tire of being transformed them, and am ever more convinced of the wisdom of my Reformed forebears. I don't consider the task of theology to be constantly breaking new ground but am content to walk in the well worn paths of men who have preceded me for I find, increasingly, I need to be far more willing to stop and reflect much more than I need to impress others with how impressive my penetrating exegesis is.

I have done my fair share of leadership in a Church environment and worry about the ignorant and going astray. I worry about them reading threads that take on core Truths about the nature of God. If anything, the problem with most people isn't that God is too far away any more but that He's so immanent that He's my buddy, my life coach, and that He wants me to grow up to be just like Him. I don't see what purpose it serves to post a very technical paper where the main thing that most people will understand (after glossing over the rest) is that God "reacts" to me. Lots of stuff I can pour into that cistern.

As for me, I'm finding that I have a lot of soul searching to do. My heart wants to do the good but my way is much too harsh. I am far too impatient. I'm working on it because I offend a lot of people here with being extremely curt. I'm praying about how I can be much more gentle in spirit without compromising on what I believe. I've got some years of "getting the job done" to overcome in that regard combined with a "protect the innocent from harm" instinct. I'm working on it.

I just ask those that are theologically "sophisticated" to focus on being Pastoral rather than innovative here. If you think your words could be read in such a way as to be construed to say more than they might intend then re-think whether what you say among your "technical audience" might be misconstrued to lead another in a heretical direction. Perhaps you're not going the way of heresy but it's often the disciples of new ideas that go off the deep end in a way the "trailblazer" never imagined. It's happened so often that I wonder why folks aren't more circumspect about it.


----------

