# A question concerning John Piper and affections in God



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 11, 2020)

I quite liked the below quotation from John Piper's latest book, with the possible exception of the word highlighted. Does Dr Piper hold to the impassibility of God, or, if he does, is it fair to conclude that he is just using the word affection in an improper sense, and he is not properly ascribing such passions to the divine essence?

Before creation, there were no standards outside of God. There was nothing outside of him for him to comply with. Before creation, God was the only reality. So when there is only God, how do you define what is right for God to do? That is, how can God’s holiness encompass not only his transcendence but also his righteousness?

The answer is that the standard of God’s righteousness is God. The foundational biblical principle is this: “He cannot deny himself” (2 Tim. 2:13). He cannot act in a way that would deny his own infinite worth and beauty and greatness. This is the standard of what is right for God.

This means that the moral dimension of God’s holiness—his righteousness—is his unwavering commitment to act in accord with his worth and beauty and greatness. Every *affection*, every thought, every word, and every act of God will always be consistent with the infinite worth and beauty of his transcendent fullness. If God were to deny this worth or beauty or greatness, it would not be right. The ultimate standard would be broken. He would be unrighteous.

John Piper, _Coronavirus and Christ_ (Wheaton IL: Crossway, 2020), pp 32-33 (emphasis added).


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 11, 2020)

One thing worth keeping in mind is that Dr Piper does not seem to understand the divine simplicity. Immediately after the above-cited section, he makes the following comment: "The goodness of God is not identical with his holiness or his righteousness." (Ibid., p. 33)

Reactions: Sad 2


----------



## Ed Walsh (Apr 11, 2020)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I quite liked the below quotation from John Piper's latest book, with the possible exception of the word highlighted. Does Dr Piper hold to the impossibility of God, or, if he does, is it fair to conclude that he is just using the word affection in an improper sense, and he is not properly ascribing such passions to the divine essence



I believe in the impassibility of God. He is not like us--He is unchangeable. (Malachi 3:6) But I see in the Bible hundreds, perhaps thousands of anthropomorphisms that ascribe emotion to God. The best I can come up with is that there is in God something that we cannot understand where He can be unchanging and yet not uncaring about things on earth. I really can't say much about this because I don't know the secret things of God. It just seems odd that there would be joy in heaven over one sinner that repents--but not with God; that there would be sorrow over the death of His saints--but not with God. My conclusion is, that since God Himself freely uses the accommodating expressions of sorrow, joy, anger, disappointment and the like, that we too should be able to freely use those expressions when speaking to or about God.

Here's an example from my recent experience.
A friend of mine who I have been working with on an almost daily basis for the last year-and-a-half died yesterday after a bout with cancer. He died without me having assurance of his salvation. And for the past month while he was getting sicker and sicker I wasn't allowed to visit him, and he was unable to speak because of cancer in his throat. So the only thing I could do was fax him a letter using large print, for his eyes were too poor even to text though he has a cell phone. In my last words to him, I gave a simple gospel message one more time which included Christ as being sent by God to die for 'his' people. My Reformed teaching made me choose the words 'his people' rather than the world. If the Scriptures over and over again declares that Jesus is the Saviour of the world. Who are we to correct the genre of the Word of God. Perhaps my little modification, in the hands of Satan, put a stumbling block before my friend. Maybe it caused him to pause and say "how do I know if I'm one of his?"

My conclusion is that I think it is both right and good to use the language of Scripture when speaking of God without filtering it through our Reformed Dogma. However, if I were teaching a class on the Trinity I would make the distinction between God's language of accommodation and the fact of His unchanging nature.

What do you all think?


----------



## Kinghezy (Apr 11, 2020)

I do not know John Piper enough to answer, but since scripture uses anthropomorphic language of God to explain things, I would assume that Piper is using it in that sense -- if there was a question. Secondly, my understanding of impassability (without passions) is that this doctrine means God cannot have emotions _that rely on something else._ Emotions (and this is straining the language) can originate from God but not be dependent. At least that is my understanding 

I have a sample verse from scripture below and a link to monergism that has additional articles on.


Yet on your fathers did the Lord set His *affection* to *love* them, and He chose their descendants after them, even you above all peoples, as it is this day.
— Deuteronomy 10:15

*Affection*:

2836 chashaq khaw-shak'

a primitive root; to cling, i.e. join, (figuratively) to
love, delight in; elliptically (or by interchangeable for
2820) to deliver:--have a delight, (have a ) desire, fillet,
long, set (in) love.

*Love*:
157 'ahab aw-hab'

or raheb {aw-habe'}; a primitive root; to have affection for
(sexually or otherwise):--(be-)love(-d, -ly, -r), like,
friend.






The Impassibility of God | Monergism


Classic Christian orthodoxy teaches that God is impassible — that is, not subject to suffering, pain, or involuntary passions. In the words of the Westminster



www.monergism.com

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## earl40 (Apr 11, 2020)

Ed Walsh said:


> I believe in the impassibility of God. He is not like us--He is unchangeable. (Malachi 3:6) But I see in the Bible hundreds, perhaps thousands of anthropomorphisms that ascribe emotion to God. The best I can come up with is that there is in God something that we cannot understand where He can be unchanging and yet not uncaring about things on earth.



This is a common thing for many to say. To assume God does not care while holding to impassibility is simply incorrect.



Ed Walsh said:


> It just seems odd that there would be joy in heaven over one sinner that repents--but not with God; that there would be sorrow over the death of His saints--but not with God. My conclusion is, that since God Himself freely uses the accommodating expressions of sorrow, joy, anger, disappointment and the like, that we too should be able to freely use those expressions when speaking to or about God.



Of course you are correct we are free to use anthropomorphisms to describe God, but don't stop short and think He has hands, feet, eyes or emotions.





Ed Walsh said:


> My conclusion is that I think it is both right and good to use the language of Scripture when speaking of God without filtering it through our Reformed Dogma. However, if I were teaching a class on the Trinity I would make the distinction between God's language of accommodation and the fact of His unchanging nature.
> 
> What do you all think?



You ought to use Reformed Dogma if you want to teach the proper thinking on The Trinity.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## earl40 (Apr 11, 2020)

Kinghezy said:


> Secondly, my understanding of impassability (without passions) is that this doctrine means God cannot have emotions _that rely on something else._ Emotions (and this is straining the language) can originate from God but not be dependent. At least that is my understanding



God cannot have emotions even if they arise from Himself. A better term to use is affections.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 11, 2020)

Piper is following Jonathan Edwards' dispositional ontology. Edwards, following Locke, broke with the traditional faculty psychology. 

I have the reference in Paul Helm's book on human nature.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 11, 2020)

Ed Walsh said:


> First of all, I do not hold to the "impossibility" of God. And I'm sure you do not either.



Now fixed; thank you.


----------



## jwright82 (Apr 11, 2020)

Since I agree with Dr. Oliphint on covenantal properties I don't per se have a problem with the language but I think divine impassibality is essential to God's character. I also have problems with faculty psychology, I don't think it's so easy to compartmentalize our experience that way.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 11, 2020)

Here are some notes on faculty psychology, with which Edwards broke.

“The soul has a range or array of powers which the mind groups as certain activities of the understanding, and others as certain activities of the will” (Helm 81).

Powers of the soul are intrinsic to one faculty or another and they may be shared. Habits are acquired by nature or grace (105). As Flavel notes these are properties of faculties, not further faculties. When we die, certain habits are reduced to mere dispositions.

With Edwards, however, Scholastic faculties become “powers of the heart.


----------



## Ed Walsh (Apr 11, 2020)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Now fixed; thank you.



And I am deleting my dig after I send this.
Ed


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Apr 11, 2020)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I quite liked the below quotation from John Piper's latest book, with the possible exception of the word highlighted. Does Dr Piper hold to the impassibility of God



I can ask him. 



BayouHuguenot said:


> Piper is following Jonathan Edwards' dispositional ontology. Edwards, following Locke, broke with the traditional faculty psychology.



Without asking him, this would be my guess.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Wretched Man (Apr 11, 2020)

earl40 said:


> God cannot have emotions even if they arise from Himself. A better term to use is affections.


I’ve never really understood the whole concept of God being without passions or unable to change or suffer as a result of affection.

Is this not what Christ did when he suffered and became sin (2 Corinthians 5:21) for us? Hence the “passion of Christ”.


----------



## Goodcheer68 (Apr 11, 2020)

Wretched Man said:


> I’ve never really understood the whole concept of God being without passions or unable to change or suffer as a result of affection.
> 
> Is this not what Christ did when he suffered and became sin (2 Corinthians 5:21) for us? Hence the “passion of Christ”.



That was the Son incarnate in the flesh. In other words it was due to his humanity that he was able to suffer, feel pain, etc. God in His essence does not change, He is immutable- impassible. Malachi 3:6

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 11, 2020)

Ed Walsh said:


> And I am deleting my dig after I send this.
> Ed



It is fine, Ed, just a bit of banter. I think Grammarly's autocorrect was being overzealous.


----------



## Ed Walsh (Apr 11, 2020)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I think Grammarly's autocorrect was being overzealous



She's not overzealous. She's just not a theologian. Besides, I estimate that the word impossible is used a hundred million times more often than impassible. The odds were on her side.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## py3ak (Apr 11, 2020)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> "Every *affection*, every thought, every word, and every act of God will always be consistent with the infinite worth and beauty of his transcendent fullness."





Reformed Covenanter said:


> "The goodness of God is not identical with his holiness or his righteousness."



Both statements are compatible with correct views on the impassibility and simplicity of God, but would also be compatible with incorrect views. The first statement is correct if "affection" is understood with appropriate qualifications; and it was a better term to use than emotion or feeling. The second statement is also correct if it's understood from the side of our conceiving rather than from the side of God's essence. If we were not aware of so many people denying or distorting those precious doctrines, I suspect we'd give Piper the benefit of the doubt; but in the current climate, it's hard to be sure.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 11, 2020)

py3ak said:


> Both statements are compatible with correct views on the impassibility and simplicity of God, but would also be compatible with incorrect views. The first statement is correct if "affection" is understood with appropriate qualifications; and it was a better term to use than emotion or feeling. The second statement is also correct if it's understood from the side of our conceiving rather than from the side of God's essence. If we were not aware of so many people denying or distorting those precious doctrines, I suspect we'd give Piper the benefit of the doubt; but in the current climate, it's hard to be sure.



Yeah, I was thinking along the same lines. He may only mean that the attributes are different from the point of view of our conceptions, not different in God. He does make good statements in relation to the Trinity and the divine essence earlier in the same chapter, so we might be best to give him the benefit of the doubt for the time being.


----------



## earl40 (Apr 11, 2020)

py3ak said:


> I suspect we'd give Piper the benefit of the doubt;



You are more gracious than I.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 11, 2020)

Wretched Man said:


> I’ve never really understood the whole concept of God being without passions or unable to change or suffer as a result of affection.
> 
> Is this not what Christ did when he suffered and became sin (2 Corinthians 5:21) for us? Hence the “passion of Christ”.



Christ suffered in his flesh. The classical tradition wants to safeguard the following:

***The divine nature is perfect. If it is perfect, then why does it need to change. Any change is a movement from an imperfection.


----------



## py3ak (Apr 11, 2020)

earl40 said:


> You are more gracious than I.



I've noticed that before!

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 11, 2020)

Regi Addictissimus said:


> I can ask him.



Do you personally know the brother in question?


----------



## Kinghezy (Apr 11, 2020)

py3ak said:


> I've noticed that before!



And... not anymore


----------



## Wretched Man (Apr 11, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Christ suffered in his flesh. The classical tradition wants to safeguard the following:
> 
> ***The divine nature is perfect. If it is perfect, then why does it need to change. Any change is a movement from an imperfection.


Maybe I don’t understand impassibility, but there are too many passages throughout scripture alluding to God’s emotions to deny that He has emotions. He grieves (Psalm 78:40, Ephesians 4:30), rejoices (Isaiah 63:5), angered (Exodus 32:10), pities (Psalm 103:13), loves (Isaiah 54:8, Psalm 103:17), etc.

Are the emotions we’ve inherited not provided in the image of our maker? Are we only to hate sin and delight in righteousness, but not God in his Devine nature?


----------



## Goodcheer68 (Apr 11, 2020)

Wretched Man said:


> Maybe I don’t understand impassibility, but there are too many passages throughout scripture alluding to God’s emotions to deny that He has emotions. He grieves (Psalm 78:40, Ephesians 4:30), rejoices (Isaiah 63:5), angered (Exodus 32:10), pities (Psalm 103:13), loves (Isaiah 54:8, Psalm 103:17), etc.




Those are anthropormorphic terms when used describing God. The Bible has many instances of other human characteristics ascribed to God such as having arms, hands, eyes, ears and so on. I would suggest watching the video with Dolezal that was posted above on impassibility. Also The LBCF and WCF both state that God does not have passions and is immutable.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 11, 2020)

Wretched Man said:


> Maybe I don’t understand impassibility, but there are too many passages throughout scripture alluding to God’s emotions to deny that He has emotions. He grieves (Psalm 78:40, Ephesians 4:30), rejoices (Isaiah 63:5), angered (Exodus 32:10), pities (Psalm 103:13), loves (Isaiah 54:8, Psalm 103:17), etc.
> 
> Are the emotions we’ve inherited not provided in the image of our maker? Are we only to hate sin and delight in righteousness, but not God in his Devine nature?



I'm not attacking emotions, per se. Here is the question: Do emotions change the divine nature?


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Apr 11, 2020)

Here's a great resource on impassibility from Gavin Beers: https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=21616738233. On a 2016 Puritanboard thread begun by you @Reformed Covenanter(!), MW commented re this sermon: "This is an exceptionally clear summation of the case for impassibility. One often wonders where to begin with an issue like this, what to say and what to omit, but Rev. Beers has brought out all the essentials without growing tedious in details."

This was a game changer for me!

(Edited out some comments I made about Pastor John Piper’s body of work because of their irrelevance and they also implied something that should not have been implied.)

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Wretched Man (Apr 11, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I'm not attacking emotions, per se. Here is the question: Do emotions change the divine nature?


I agree emotions don’t change the Devine nature. Do you believe God in his Devine nature has emotions?




Goodcheer68 said:


> I would suggest watching the video with Dolezal that was posted above on impassibility.


I started watching that video earlier today and got maybe 15 mins into it... I’ll try picking it up later. Thanks.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 11, 2020)

Wretched Man said:


> Do you believe God in his Devine nature has emotions?



Analogically. He doesn't have emotions the same way we do.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## py3ak (Apr 11, 2020)

Kinghezy said:


> And... not anymore



I'd like to think the habit of graciousness is still present, even if the act was temporarily in abeyance!


----------



## Wretched Man (Apr 11, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Here's a great resource on impassibility from Gavin Beers: https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=21616738233. On a 2016 Puritanboard thread begun by you @Reformed Covenanter(!), MW commented re this sermon: "This is an exceptionally clear summation of the case for impassibility. One often wonders where to begin with an issue like this, what to say and what to omit, but Rev. Beers has brought out all the essentials without growing tedious in details."
> 
> This was a game changer for me. I was brought to the doctrines of grace by Pastor Piper's sermons on Romans, considered him my father and hero of the faith, owned and read most of his books, attended his conference once, met him once, was a big fan (and still love and appreciate him). But I had never learned from him the wonderful truth of God's simplicity. The above sermon from Gavin Beers was a huge piece of the "puzzle" I lacked that did more for me in raising my awe and worship of God than even Pastor Piper (with all his wonderful skill in using those hyphened adjectives  ) had done. Just saying.


Thanks

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Goodcheer68 (Apr 11, 2020)

Wretched Man said:


> Do you believe God in his Devine nature has emotions?



I know you were asking Jacob but I would say what Jacob said and also that when we say we have emotions those entail change in us. God has no change in himself.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 11, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Here's a great resource on impassibility from Gavin Beers: https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=21616738233. On a 2016 Puritanboard thread begun by you @Reformed Covenanter(!), MW commented re this sermon: "This is an exceptionally clear summation of the case for impassibility. One often wonders where to begin with an issue like this, what to say and what to omit, but Rev. Beers has brought out all the essentials without growing tedious in details."
> 
> This was a game changer for me. I was brought to the doctrines of grace by Pastor Piper's sermons on Romans, considered him my father and hero of the faith, owned and read most of his books, attended his conference once, met him once, was a big fan (and still love and appreciate him). But I had never learned from him the wonderful truth of God's simplicity. The above sermon from Gavin Beers was a huge piece of the "puzzle" I lacked that did more for me in raising my awe and worship of God than even Pastor Piper (with all his wonderful skill in using those hyphened adjectives  ) had done. Just saying.



While everything you have said concerning John Piper may be true, that is not the same thing as saying that he denies either divine simplicity or impassibility (Grammarly, please stop changing that word to impossibility ). Part of the reason why Gavin Beers and myself (keep in mind that I have known him for nearly twenty years) emphasise these doctrines, is because of how we have had to confront the issue, or, to be more precise, had to combat those who questioned or denied either impassibility or simplicity.

Edit: Sorry, I left out a few words from the second sentence.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Apr 11, 2020)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> While everything you have said concerning John Piper may be true, that is not the same thing as saying that he denies either divine simplicity or impassibility


That’s very true, and I have no reason to believe he does deny it. I’ll amend my post to avoid that inference.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ed Walsh (Apr 14, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Here's a great resource on impassibility from Gavin Beers: https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=21616738233. On a 2016 Puritanboard thread begun by you @Reformed Covenanter(!), MW commented re this sermon: "This is an exceptionally clear summation of the case for impassibility. One often wonders where to begin with an issue like this, what to say and what to omit, but Rev. Beers has brought out all the essentials without growing tedious in details."



Hi Jeri,

I finally got around to listening to this very excellent sermon. I think Beers did a great job. Thank you so much for the tip.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## earl40 (Apr 14, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Analogically. He doesn't have emotions the same way we do.



Can you give me one thought, apart from the incarnation, in which the divine nature of God can have any emotions within Himself. To say God has emotions, apart from how we have them, still posits He changes. I understand totally the idea most want to qualify many statements, but the fact of the matter is God, strictly speaking, has no emotions at all within Himself. Using the word "analogically" only helps if speaking in how one can perceive that He treats his creatures based on His fullness.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 14, 2020)

earl40 said:


> Can you give me one thought, apart from the incarnation, in which the divine nature of God can have any emotions within Himself. To say God has emotions, apart from how we have them, still posits He changes. I understand totally the idea most want to qualify many statements, but the fact of the matter is God, strictly speaking, has no emotions at all within Himself. Using the word "analogically" only helps if speaking in how one can perceive that He treats his creatures based on His fullness.



Analogically isn't much different from saying things like "anthropomorphism," and analogical language has always been a staple of orthodoxy.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## User20004000 (Apr 14, 2020)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> One thing worth keeping in mind is that Dr Piper does not seem to understand the divine simplicity. Immediately after the above-cited section, he makes the following comment: "The goodness of God is not identical with his holiness or his righteousness." (Ibid., p. 33)



Daniel,

Piper has a habit of tagging traditional terms in non-traditional ways. He does this with works as they relate to justification.

If we affirm:

God is goodness
God is holiness

must we maintain that goodness _is_ holiness? I think not because “is” doesn’t mean “equals.”

Walk with me here...

I think to maintain _simplicity_ one must maintain that God is indivisibly one. He’s not made up from composites. Nor is he “like” his attributes. He’s not “like” holiness, as if holiness were an abstract concept outside God.

Yet when we speak in terms of God’s attributes being _identical_, it’s not as though we should assert that wrath is identical to holiness in an unqualified sense. What would that even mean to us? After all, holiness is an absolute attribute whereas wrath, although an attribute, is classified under _relative attributes_. The latter needing creation to be _manifested_, unlike those attributes we might label “absolute attributes.” So, in one sense holiness cannot be identical to wrath. I think the theological distinction is that God’s wrath is holy wrath. The two attributes permeate each other. They cannot be separated, so being indivisible they’re one and identical. God’s holy wrath is also just and good....


----------



## chuckd (Apr 14, 2020)

earl40 said:


> God cannot have emotions even if they arise from Himself. A better term to use is affections.


I'd say a better term is to use volition as opposed to emotion.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 14, 2020)

RWD said:


> If we affirm:
> 
> God is goodness
> God is holiness
> ...



Traditionally, the Reformed have understood simplicity to mean that not only are the attributes identical with the essence of God but that they are also identical with each other. So that in God, his holiness is his love, and his love is his holiness. The distinction between these attributes is in our conceptions, yet they cannot be properly distinct in God or else he is composed of different attributes, which obviously contradicts the notion that God is without parts.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 14, 2020)

RWD said:


> Yet when we speak in terms of God’s attributes being _identical_, it’s not as though we should assert that wrath is identical to holiness in an unqualified sense. What would that even mean to us? After all, holiness is an absolute attribute whereas wrath, although an attribute, is classified under _relative attributes_. The latter needing creation to be _manifested_, unlike those attributes we might label “absolute attributes.” So, in one sense holiness cannot be identical to wrath. I think the theological distinction is that God’s wrath is holy wrath. The two attributes permeate each other. They cannot be separated, so being indivisible they’re one and identical. God’s holy wrath is also just and good....



Sorry for another post, Ron, but for some reason I was not able to quote twice in the previous post. On the subject of God's wrath, I agree with John Owen's take on the subject.


----------



## earl40 (Apr 14, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Analogically isn't much different from saying things like "anthropomorphism," and analogical language has always been a staple of orthodoxy.





I agree though when pressed most will deny His immutability by insisting God has some type emotions. We have no problem saying God does not have eyes, ears, and hands with ease. So as I asked before can you unequivocally say God has no emotions?


----------



## User20004000 (Apr 14, 2020)

I hear you, Daniel. I’m just not sure that the Reformed tradition doesn’t nuance simplicity in the way I’ve suggested. 

For instance, Geerhardus Vos:

_“102. What is the difference between the holiness of God and His righteousness?”_

“These to attributes are most closely connected to one another, yet they are not identical with each other....” (He goes on to ascribe a twofold distinction.)

Even Herman Bavinck, after asserting that (a) God’s attributes are identical with his being and (b) “nor differ from one another,” he goes on to expand with careful qualification “We maintain..., nevertheless, *distinctions* must be made: the attributes do not differ in substance; *nor, on the other hand, is the difference a merely verbal one*; they differ in ‘thought’, i.e., *each attribute a distinct something*.” (Distinct something, he notes.)

He goes further to say, “Hence, it has been correctly remarked that the distinctions are based upon God’s revelation itself... Moreover, for God’s ‘simplicity’ does not indicate that he is an abstract and contentless essence.”

An earlier point of mine was that if we make two attributes out to mean identically the same thing without any qualification whatsoever, then in doing so we evacuate any meaning of our own words. Charles Hodge seems to have concurred:

“If in God eternity is identical with knowledge, knowledge with power, power with ubiquity, and ubiquity with holiness, *we are using words without meaning *when we attribute any perfection to God.” He goes on to discuss “blank ignorance” in accordance to an “extreme view of the simplicity of his essence...” 

And if I’ve read Berkhof aright, he seems to limit simplicity to indivisibility, limiting the discussion to attributes being identical to God’s being, without mention of each attribute being identical to all other attributes.

Dabney would seem to deny simplicity all together.

I have all volumes should anyone want references.

Please mind, I’m not arguing for or against any concept of simplicity but merely that I don’t find a doctrine of simplicity in our own tradition that, for instance, unpacks love as _equating_ to wrath without remainder.

Indeed, we are delving into high mystery here, but Hodge’s caution rings true to me. What are we even saying when we assert God is love, if love is purely identical with wrath?


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 14, 2020)

earl40 said:


> I agree though when pressed most will deny His immutability by insisting God has some type emotions. We have no problem saying God does not have eyes, ears, and hands with ease. So as I asked before can you unequivocally say God has no emotions?



Analogically, God has no emotions. I can't say univocally God has no emotions, for that would contradict Scripture.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 14, 2020)

RWD said:


> I hear you, Daniel. I’m just not sure that the Reformed tradition doesn’t nuance simplicity in the way I’ve suggested.



Perhaps I should have been clearer: I meant the Reformed in the era of confessional formulation. Regretfully, the Reformed theologians in the 19th and 20th centuries, whom you cite, dropped the ball on the issue of the identity of the divine attributes with one another. I think that Charles Hodge's concerns could have been allayed had he been more careful to distinguish between the attributes in our conceptions and the attributes as they are in God. If the attributes are identical with the simple divine essence, then they have to be identical with one another; otherwise, we will end up asserting that the attributes are parts that compose God, rather than being identical with God's essence and with each other.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Goodcheer68 (Apr 14, 2020)

RWD said:


> love as _equating_ to wrath without remainder.


Wrath isn’t an attribute it’s a response stemming from his Justice and Holiness.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## User20004000 (Apr 14, 2020)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Perhaps I should have been clearer: I meant the Reformed in the era of confessional formulation. Regretfully, the Reformed theologians in the 19th and 20th centuries, whom you cite, dropped the ball on the issue of the identity of the divine attributes with one another. I think that Charles Hodge's concerns could have been allayed had he been more careful to distinguish between the attributes in our conceptions and the attributes as they are in God. If the attributes are identical with the simple divine essence, then they have to be identical with one another; otherwise, we will end up asserting that the attributes are parts that compose God, rather than being identical with God's essence and with each other.



As you know, it’s not just Hodge who takes issue in that way.

With respect to identity X is the same as Y _iff_ every true predicate of X is also a true predicate of Y. Is every true predicate of omniscience true of wrath? No, I would think not, for the manifestation of omniscience doesn’t depend upon creation whereas the manifestation of wrath does. Accordingly, it would not appear true that omniscience and wrath are identical. That presents an insurmountable problem for strict identity, which I believe the Reformed scholastics wisely avoided.

However, they didn’t fall into a ditch on the other side, for neither does that imply that God is a _composite_ of omniscience + wrath + the rest of his attributes taken in discrete isolation. That omniscience and wrath fail to _equate_ with each other does not imply that God’s attributes “add up” to God, or that each attribute is a fraction of the whole. That’s to misapply a concept of fractions where it has no place. Even on a creaturely level we can see that although the barn is red and wooden, that doesn’t imply that the red barn is a composite, merely partly red and partly wooden. We can conceive of the barn being fully red and fully wooden. What is red is wooden and what is wooden is red, which avoids the problem of being 1/2 red and 1/2 wooden. It’s to conflate concepts to think that leads to composites. Full circle, God is love and God is holy, but to say holy equates to love leaves us with no knowledge of God at all. That’s a problem.


----------



## User20004000 (Apr 14, 2020)

Goodcheer68 said:


> Wrath isn’t an attribute it’s a response stemming from his Justice and Holiness.



It’s debatable, so by all means substitute another in its place. The point being made doesn’t hinge on it.

As a point of interest, is God’s omnipresence not an attribute since it would seem to contemplate space, which is a created thing? Accordingly, attributes can be responses, which is why wrath is often considered an attribute.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 14, 2020)

RWD said:


> However, they didn’t fall into a ditch on the other side, for neither does that imply that God is a _composite_ of omniscience + wrath + the rest of his attributes taken in discrete isolation. That omniscience and wrath fail to _equate_ with each other does not imply that God’s attributes “add up” to God, or that each attribute is a fraction of the whole. That’s to misapply a concept of fractions where it has no place.



That formulation means that there are real distinctions in God, which is at odds with simplicity.



RWD said:


> Even on a creaturely level we can see that although the barn is red and wooden, that doesn’t imply that the red barn is a composite, merely partly red and partly wooden. We can conceive of the barn being fully red and fully wooden. What is red is wooden and what is wooden is red, which avoids the problem of being partially 1/2 red and 1/2 wooden.



The problem with that comparison is a barn is made up of substance and accidents, whereas God is not. A barn may or may not be red (accident), but still remain a barn (substance). God's attributes are not like that, as God is without accidents. So, while the divine attributes may be conceptually distinguished according to our finite understandings, they cannot actually be different either from God's essence or from each other. Accordingly, God's love is holy love, and God's holiness is infinitely lovely. That is why the Westminster Confession uses language such as "to the praise of his glorious justice"; owing to the identity of the divine attributes with one another, God's justice is glorious and his glory is perfectly just. I really do not see why the identity of the divine attributes with each other is a problem? After all, is not the love of God infinite, eternal, and immutable? Is God not immutably holy, and holy in his immutability? 



RWD said:


> Full circle, God is love and God is holy, but to say holy equates to love leaves us with no knowledge of God at all. That’s a problem.



This assumption is only a problem if one assumes a univocal likeness between divine and human knowledge, which is the error that Charles Hodge seems to fall into on this point. Analogical knowledge solves the problem he raises and also does justice to the divine incomprehensibility. Of course, we cannot fully understand how the divine attributes are identical with one another, but neither can we fully comprehend the divine essence. I mean no disrespect to these 19th and 20th-century guys, but it is partly thanks to them that we have ended up with some absolutely shocking teaching concerning theology proper in modern Reformed circles.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## User20004000 (Apr 14, 2020)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> That formulation means that there are real distinctions in God, which is at odds with simplicity.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



“That formulation means that there are real distinctions in God, which is at odds with simplicity.”

Ah, but the theologians I referenced believed that they were the ones holding to divine simplicity. So, all you’ve done is point to a variant concept to their view of simplicity in order to make your claim against them. That’s a fallacy. It’s stacking the deck. It’s not to perform an internal critique or their theology proper. 

“The problem with that comparison is a barn is made up of substance and accidents, whereas God is not.”

That redness isn’t essential to barnness doesn’t undermine the relevance of the analogy. The point of the creaturely example is that being able to predicate both x and y distinctions of z does not imply that x and y total z, or that z isn’t both fully x and fully y. 

“This assumption is only a problem if one assumes a univocal likeness between divine and human knowledge, which is the error that Charles Hodge seems to fall into on this point. Analogical knowledge solves the problem he raises.”

Analogical knowledge cannot salvage the obliteration of the meaning of words. In other words, if to God “love _equals_ omniscience,” what can that possibly mean to us? To say that love equals omniscience is to destroy for us the meaning of both love and omniscience. Accordingly, any appeal to analogical knowledge that _immediately_ reduces to skepticism is no safe haven. We must do better.


----------



## earl40 (Apr 14, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Analogically, God has no emotions. I can't say univocally God has no emotions, for that would contradict Scripture.



Anthropomorphically, God has no hands.  The analogy is to show us how we ought to think, as if, God has emotions while knowing He does not change his state of being or possess emotions. To think God has any type of emotional life is to posit change in His being.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 14, 2020)

earl40 said:


> Anthropomorphically, God has no hands.  The analogy is to show us how we ought to think, as if, God has emotions while knowing He does not change his state of being or possess emotions. To think God has any type of emotional life is to posit change in His being.



My point is that you can't simultaneously say "unequivocally, God has no ______" and to say "anthropomorphism." Unequivocally rules everything out.

In any case, I am not positing an emotional life in God, praise be to Aristotle.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 14, 2020)

RWD said:


> Ah, but the theologians I referenced believed that they were the ones holding to divine simplicity. So, all you’ve done is point to a variant concept to their view of simplicity in order to make your claim against them. That’s a fallacy. It’s stacking the deck. It’s not to perform an internal critique or their theology proper.



No, they redefined simplicity in a manner at variance with the traditional confessional formulation, which was Thomistic to the core. 



RWD said:


> That redness isn’t essential to barnness doesn’t undermine the relevance of the analogy.



It does because in God the attributes are identical to the essence. The same cannot be said of a red barn. 



RWD said:


> Analogical knowledge cannot salvage the obliteration of the meaning of words. In other words, if to God “love _equals_ omniscience,” what can that possibly mean to us? To say that love equals omniscience is to destroy for us the meaning of both love and omniscience. Accordingly, any appeal to analogical knowledge that _immediately_ reduces to skepticism is no safe haven. We must do better.



Univocal knowledge is rationalism and is incongruous with incomprehensibility.


----------



## User20004000 (Apr 14, 2020)

“No, they redefined simplicity in a manner at variance with the traditional confessional formulation, which was Thomistic to the core.”

That completely misses the point. Your assertion that those Reformed stalwarts denied simplicity is a charge of heterodoxy or else it’s irrelevant. All you’ve done is beg the question of whether the scholastics I’ve cited are unbiblical. As for the Confession, you’re simply reading into it what you want to be there. It doesn’t teach x is y, y is z, therefore, x is z, else the best theologians of 18th and 19th century covertly denied the Confession.

“It does because in God the attributes are identical to the essence. The same cannot be said of a red barn.”

LOL Maybe you might interact with the analogy rather than just citing false disjunctions.

“Univocal knowledge is rationalism and is incongruous with incomprehensibility.”

Nobody has asserted or appealed to univocal knowledge, Daniel. What I’ve done is point out to you that your attempt to justify divine simplicity by what you think is “analogical knowledge” turns out to be a mockery of analogical knowledge! Analogical knowledge doesn’t posit things so silly as: merciful = just. Or, love = omniscience. That’s not a display of analogical knowledge. It’s a display of unintelligibility. To point that out to you is hardly “rationalism.” At the very least, since when does analogical knowledge reduce to unintelligibility, or is: “love = omniscience” intelligible to you?

So, please tell me, what does it mean to you that *p* _God is love, _equates to *p* *_God is ubiquitous? _Is that where you think “incomprehensibility” should lead you - to absolutely no knowledge of God whatsoever?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 14, 2020)

RWD said:


> “No, they redefined simplicity in a manner at variance with the traditional confessional formulation, which was Thomistic to the core.”
> 
> That completely misses the point. Your assertion that those Reformed stalwarts denied simplicity is a charge of heterodoxy or else it’s irrelevant. All you’ve done is beg the question of whether the scholastics I’ve cited are unbiblical. As for the Confession, you’re simply reading into it what you want to be there. It doesn’t teach x is y, y is z, therefore, x is z, else the best theologians of 18th and 19th century covertly denied the Confession.
> 
> ...



Evidently, I am not persuading you. If I say much more, I will just be repeating myself. I believe that I have already sufficiently answered those points, whereas you beg to differ. I would add, however, that I am not reading what I want into the confession, but reading the document on the terms in which its framers operated. Have a look a Richard Muller's _PRRD_ on the subject if you get the chance to see what I am getting at.


----------



## User20004000 (Apr 14, 2020)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Evidently, I am not persuading you. If I say much more, I will just be repeating myself. I believe that I have already sufficiently answered those points, whereas you beg to differ. I would add, however, that I am not reading what I want into the confession, but reading the document on the terms in which its framers operated. Have a look a Richard Muller's _PRRD_ on the subject if you get the chance to see what I am getting at.



I’ll make one last Confessional point. WLC #9 distinguishes personal properties within the Godhead. That entails real _distinctions_ within the Trinity. Yet what you’re advocating for makes no allowance for _x not equaling y in the Godhead. _That means the Father is the Son, if all properties in God are identical to each other. (It’s no wonder that Thomas has been seen as having some modalistic leanings.)

Blessings, Soldier of our Lord!


----------



## Goodcheer68 (Apr 14, 2020)

RWD said:


> love = omniscience” intelligible to you?


It is when you understand that the distinction lies in the way God reveals Himself to creation and does not lie in himself (in His essence).


----------



## User20004000 (Apr 14, 2020)

Goodcheer68 said:


> It is when you understand that the distinction lies in the way God reveals Himself to creation and does not lie in himself (in His essence).



I’m not sure that’s even a sentence. But please lisp to me. What is it you’d have me understand?


----------



## py3ak (Apr 14, 2020)

RWD said:


> Dabney would seem to deny simplicity all together.





RWD said:


> Ah, but the theologians I referenced believed that they were the ones holding to divine simplicity. So, all you’ve done is point to a variant concept to their view of simplicity in order to make your claim against them. That’s a fallacy. It’s stacking the deck. It’s not to perform an internal critique or their theology proper.





RWD said:


> Your assertion that those Reformed stalwarts denied simplicity is a charge of heterodoxy or else it’s irrelevant.


----------



## earl40 (Apr 14, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> My point is that you can't simultaneously say "unequivocally, God has no ______" and to say "anthropomorphism." Unequivocally rules everything out.
> 
> In any case, I am not positing an emotional life in God, praise be to Aristotle.



I was simply pointing out how using an anthropomorphism is no different to show how one can still think wrongly God has a body. This happens also when one uses analogical thinking of God, in His essence, is something like men. He is unequivocally wholly other.


----------



## py3ak (Apr 14, 2020)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> If the attributes are identical with the simple divine essence, then they have to be identical with one another; otherwise, we will end up asserting that the attributes are parts that compose God, rather than being identical with God's essence and with each other.



You make a couple of important points here, Daniel. I appreciate the language Duby used to explain this when he speaks of the attributes of God as _referentially identical, but denotatively diverse_. That's the neatest encapsulation I've encountered so far. Indeed, the language of "attribute" should be taken seriously, because the element of human perception seems baked into the crust in a way that would not be true of other terms that could be used like "quality" or "property." Ectypal theology attributes these attributes to God because what is _one_ in the archetype is considered under various aspects according to the limitations of human understanding, which cannot comprehend God, but partially apprehends "the outskirts of his ways" (Job 26:14).

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Goodcheer68 (Apr 14, 2020)

RWD said:


> I’m not sure that’s even a sentence. But please lisp to me. What is it you’d have me understand?



I was responding to your question “is: “love = omniscience” intelligible to you?” And I responded with a statement, “it is...” Pretty clear, no lisping. But just in case, I’ll say it again slightly different. It is intelligible when one understands that in God (in his essence) there are not distinctions between attributes. The distinctions appear in Gods revelation to creation.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 14, 2020)

earl40 said:


> analogical thinking of God, in His essence, is something like men. He is unequivocally wholly other.



He has rationality. We have rationality, albeit not in the same way. Ergo, analogical. Have you read Augustine's De Trinitate on this point?


----------



## User20004000 (Apr 14, 2020)

Goodcheer68 said:


> I was responding to your question “is: “love = omniscience” intelligible to you?” And I responded with a statement, “it is...” Pretty clear, no lisping. But just in case, I’ll say it again slightly different. It is intelligible when one understands that in God (in his essence) there are not distinctions between attributes. The distinctions appear in Gods revelation to creation.



Thanks. Let’s now apply your ideal to Scripture. I’ll ask two direct questions. Please answer.

1. Define “love” and “omniscience” in the single proposition: _Love equals omniscience._

2. I’ll substitute “omniscience” for God’s attribute of “love” in 1 John 4:8. Please exegete: “Whoever does not love does not know God; for God is *omniscient*.” (Feel free to use commentaries and Google.)


----------



## Goodcheer68 (Apr 14, 2020)

RWD said:


> 2. I’ll substitute “omniscience” for God’s attribute of “love” in 1 John 4:8. Please exegete: “Whoever does not love does not know God; for God is *omniscient*.” (Feel free to use commentaries and Google.)


 You just showed how we have distinctions in the use of these attributes (Which we all agree) but did not show how that relates to God in Himself. People have already explained how we understand this, it’s using the idea of ectypal/archetypal or analogical language. Again the distinction lies in how God reveals himself not in himself as He is.


----------



## User20004000 (Apr 14, 2020)

Goodcheer68 said:


> You just showed how we have distinctions in the use of these attributes (Which we all agree) but did not show how that relates to God in Himself. People have already explained how we understand this, it’s using the idea of ectypal/archetypal or analogical language. Again the distinction lies in how God reveals himself not in himself as He is.



Brother,

Humor me. I believe you’re talking around two rather direct questions. Please, if you don’t mind, answer my two direct questions. Then, if you still like, we can consider how analogical language can be of any use. Until then, you have love and omniscience serving as synonyms. Not good.


----------



## Goodcheer68 (Apr 14, 2020)

RWD said:


> Humor me. I believe you’re talking around two rather direct questions. Please, if you don’t mind, answer my two direct questions. Then, if you still like, we can consider how analogical language can be of any use. Until then, you have love and omniscience serving as synonyms. Not good.



I’ve made it quite clear that it has to do with God’s revelation to us. We see distinctions because that is how it is revealed to us but in God the attributes are one.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## User20004000 (Apr 14, 2020)

Goodcheer68 said:


> I’ve made it quite clear that it has to do with God’s revelation to us. We see distinctions because that is how it is revealed to us but in God the attributes are one.



Very sad on multiple levels. Since you won’t answer two very basic questions, then tell me this. Is your knowledge of “love equals omniscience” univocal or analogical?


----------



## User20004000 (Apr 14, 2020)

> ”Accordingly, God's love is holy love, and God's holiness is infinitely lovely. That is why the Westminster Confession uses language such as "to the praise of his glorious justice"; owing to the identity of the divine attributes with one another, God's justice is glorious and his glory is perfectly just. I really do not see why the identity of the divine attributes with each other is a problem? After all, is not the love of God infinite, eternal, and immutable? Is God not immutably holy, and holy in his immutability?”



Daniel, that quote of yours reflects the _simplicity_ I put forth in my first post (#38).

I wrote: “I think the theological distinction is that God’s wrath is holy wrath. The two attributes permeate each other. They cannot be separated, so being indivisible they’re one and identical. God’s holy wrath is also just and good....”

That’s the simplicity of the scholastics you later argued jettisoned the Divines. In that sense, the sense I put forth, attribute x serves as a _descriptor_ of attribute y etc. However, that view of simplicity, which to me is agreeable (and also implicitly found in Letham as he elaborates upon attributes being _identical_) is denied by the _strict_ identity that would _equate_ x with y. The simplicity you state above doesn’t reduce to skepticism by an appeal to analogical knowledge that would try to salvage the equivalency of omniscience and love. You argue against that view in other posts, even in that same post.


----------



## Goodcheer68 (Apr 14, 2020)

RWD said:


> Very sad on multiple levels. Since you won’t answer two very basic questions, then tell me this. Is your knowledge of “love equals omniscience” univocal or analogical?


 What is sad is that I have answered your question but you refuse to hear.


----------



## User20004000 (Apr 15, 2020)

Goodcheer68 said:


> What is sad is that I have answered your question but you refuse to hear.



That’s simply not true. I asked two direct questions in post #64:

1. Define “love” and “omniscience” in the single proposition: _Love equals omniscience._

2. I’ll substitute “omniscience” for God’s attribute of “love” in 1 John 4:8. Please exegete: “Whoever does not love does not know God; for God is omniscient.” (Feel free to use commentaries and Google.)

Your subsequent posts were *65*, *67* and *70, *provided below.

1. Nowhere did you try to _define_ love and omniscience in the proposition, _Love equals omniscience_.

2. Nor did you make an attempt to exegete 1 John 4:8 with the substitution of omniscience for love, which you suggest are identical attributes.

Your responses to those two direct question do not answer the questions:

*65.* “You just showed how we have distinctions in the use of these attributes (Which we all agree) but did not show how that relates to God in Himself. People have already explained how we understand this, it’s using the idea of ectypal/archetypal or analogical language. Again the distinction lies in how God reveals himself not in himself as He is.”

*67.* “I’ve made it quite clear that it has to do with God’s revelation to us. We see distinctions because that is how it is revealed to us but in God the attributes are one.”

*70.* “What is sad is that I have answered your question but you refuse to hear.”


----------



## earl40 (Apr 15, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> He has rationality. We have rationality, albeit not in the same way. Ergo, analogical. Have you read Augustine's De Trinitate on this point?



I have not read that. May do one day. Quick question how can God be rational?


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 15, 2020)

earl40 said:


> I have not read that. May do one day. Quick question how can God be rational?



Is this really a question?


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Apr 15, 2020)

"Let brotherly love continue." By all means continue your dialogues with one another, but assume the best of each other and please let that show in your patient responses.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 15, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> "Let brotherly love continue." By all means continue your dialogues with one another, but assume the best of each other and please let that show in your patient responses.



I did assume the best. I honestly had no idea what he meant, given that every single Christian thinker has predicated rationality of God. If you say there is a divine mind, then you have to say there is rationality with God. This is basic theism.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 15, 2020)

This is from Richard Muller's Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms. It is Reformed Orthodoxy. It is on p. 157 in my volume, otherwise under the entry for "intellectus Dei."

"The intellect of God. Just as God is described as having a will, so is he argued by the scholastics to have intellect or understanding, the other faculty of spiritual or *rational* being. Like all other divine attributes, the intellectus Dei is identical with the divine essence."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## earl40 (Apr 16, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Is this really a question?



Yes, it was to lead the discussion that God uses logic to "come" to a conclusion. God does not use rationality or logical thought to come conclusions. I am sure we agree with this.  In other words like the word emotion God does not posses rationality in that the very word itself is only good to describe what creatures posses in the ectypal sense.


----------



## earl40 (Apr 16, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> This is from Richard Muller's Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms. It is Reformed Orthodoxy. It is on p. 157 in my volume, otherwise under the entry for "intellectus Dei."
> 
> "The intellect of God. Just as God is described as having a will, so is he argued by the scholastics to have intellect or understanding, the other faculty of spiritual or *rational* being. Like all other divine attributes, the intellectus Dei is identical with the divine essence."



PS. Thank you for the link I will listen to it when I have time.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 16, 2020)

earl40 said:


> Yes, it was to lead the discussion that God uses logic to "come" to a conclusion. God does not use rationality or logical thought to come conclusions. I am sure we agree with this.  In other words like the word emotion God does not posses rationality in that the very word itself is only good to describe what creatures posses in the ectypal sense.



God doesn't reason discursively. No Reformed scholastic ever held to that point. Your question seemed to imply that God was some blob of essence of which nothing can be predicated. Outside of a few extreme Islamic theologians, every theist in history said God was rational. So your question just caught me off guard.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 16, 2020)

I see the problem. You equated rationality with the mode of discursive reasoning. That was never the orthodox position. There are ways of being rational that don't require discursive reasoning.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## earl40 (Apr 16, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I see the problem. You equated rationality with the mode of discursive reasoning. That was never the orthodox position. There are ways of being rational that don't require discursive reasoning.



I will pass for now and simply say there is no rational way of being a rational being without discursive reasoning.

PS. I will say it appears God is rational by His actions.


----------



## User20004000 (Apr 16, 2020)

earl40 said:


> I will pass for now and simply say there is no rational way of being a rational being without discursive reasoning.
> 
> PS. I will say it appears God is rational by His actions.



That doesn’t even follow with respect to humans. We don’t reason our way to _a_ _priori _tools of reason. (Nor do we reason ourselves to experience the rose is red.) Take the law of non-contradiction, law of identity or law of excluded middle. If we had to discursively reason to know such laws of logic, then we’d have to conduct such reasoning without them! Surely that entails a contradiction.

As for God and rationality, where do you suppose the laws of logic are grounded? Obviously, being propositions, in God. They are necessary truths. Those laws are indeed rational, yet God doesn’t reason to know them (nor do humans).


----------



## usernamecrtamil (Apr 16, 2020)

If it hasn't already been recommended, this is a wonderful primer on the Doctrine of Divine Impassibility by our Baptist brother Dr. Samuel Renihan. The classical understanding of the Doctrine of God is waxing thin and it shows in it's conceptual development by many modern, esteemed Pastor/Theologians.






God without Passions: A Primer: Renihan, Samuel: 9780991659913: Amazon.com: Books


God without Passions: A Primer [Renihan, Samuel] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. God without Passions: A Primer



www.amazon.com

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## earl40 (Apr 16, 2020)

RWD said:


> That doesn’t even follow with respect to humans. We don’t reason our way to _a_ _priori _tools of reason. (Nor do we reason ourselves to experience the rose is red.) Take the law of non-contradiction, law of identity or law of excluded middle. If we had to discursively reason to know such laws of logic, then we’d have to conduct such reasoning without them! Surely that entails a contradiction.



Allow me to use some time to do some discursive reasoning to see if I make a rational decision on what you wrote.


----------



## TheInquirer (Apr 16, 2020)

Van Mastricht has a section on God's affections under the topic of God's will. Here is how he defines God's affections:

"Affections, then, in God are nothing other than the acts of the divine will insofar as they sustain such relations to the creatures, as the analogous affections in men sustain and set in motion. So then, according to the common saying of Gregory of Nazianzus, since these affections are attributed to God in a human way, they must be understood in a way worthy of God, according to the effective operation rather than the affection." (Theoretical-Practical Theology, Vol. 2, 304.)

Also, several of the last Reformed systematics I have read (Turretin, Van Matricht, etc.) have clearly stated God does not reason discursively. I think this highlights a fundamental problem in theology - assigning human operation of faculties, affections to God. He isn't like us hence Jacob's correct emphasis on analogy in the language used in Scripture.

Reactions: Like 3


----------

