Does God have emotions?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by Steadfast
Yeah, I think the denial that God has emotions is a walk down Plato avenue.

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

What basis do you have for this charge?

Our interpretation of scripture must be logical.
 
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
Originally posted by Steadfast
Yeah, I think the denial that God has emotions is a walk down Plato avenue.

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

What basis do you have for this charge?

Our interpretation of scripture must be logical.

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

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

According to your thinking, wouldn't this too, imply change?
 
Well.... He is God..... infinitely complex would be right in line with infinitely everything else that He is..... all that, perfectly in line with Him being immutable, since His complexity and simpleness are things that ARE - they never change. God is forever ONE. God is forever THREE. (of course, both not in the same sense). Simple (ONE). Complex (THREE).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Confessions and catechisms and theologians can and DO err, my friend. Trust the scriptures. ;)
 
Originally posted by Steadfast
Right, so when the Bible says "God was wrathful/sorrowful/jealous/loving" it's logical not to explain it away with appeals to philosophy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Call this "appealing to philosophy" or "platonic" whatever you want, but that is avoiding the issue and will not work as a counter-argument.
 
Is not God immanent as well as transcendent. God condescends by way of covenant to have relationship with man and as a result has genuine emotion about His creation. i.e. love for the elect, hatred for the reprobate, anger at those who disobey His preceptive will, pleasure in those who obey His preceptive will (i.e. those in Christ) etc.

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

VanVos

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

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

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

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

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

But maybe that's just the Lutheran in me.

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

I agree.


God has emotions. They are simply not contingent or whimsical like ours. The Trinity shares perfect joy I imagine. Otherwise how could God be personal ? He is not a divine computer.
 
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
Attributing emotions to God in that fashion destroys the immutability of God. If God can be angry, sad, happy etc., he changes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


God's emotions are immutable, just like the rest of His characteristics. The presence of emotions does NOT imply change.
 
Webster's 1828 Dicitonary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Edited on 11-21-2005 by Saiph]
 
As stated in Metaph. ix, 16, action is twofold. Actions of one kind pass out to external matter, as to heat or to cut; whilst actions of the other kind remain in the agent, as to understand, to sense and to will. The difference between them is this, that the former action is the perfection not of the agent that moves, but of the thing moved; whereas the latter action is the perfection of the agent. Hence, because movement is an act of the thing in movement, the latter action, in so far as it is the act of the operator, is called its movement, by this similitude, that as movement is an act of the thing moved, so an act of this kind is the act of the agent, although movement is an act of the imperfect, that is, of what is in potentiality; while this kind of act is an act of the perfect, that is to say, of what is in act as stated in De Anima iii, 28. In the sense, therefore, in which understanding is movement, that which understands itself is said to move itself. It is in this sense that Plato also taught that God moves Himself; not in the sense in which movement is an act of the imperfect.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/101803.htm
 
Are the fruits of the Spirit God's emotions ?

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


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

Zephaniah 3:17


What will the wedding banquet be like if the host is a stoic ? ?
 
Originally posted by Saiph
Ezekiel's vision. Wheels moving within wheels.

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

Movement is the measurement of change.

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

Where was that place? :um:
 
Originally posted by Saiph
Are the fruits of the Spirit God's emotions ?

Of course they are. I have never denied that God has emotions in a sense.

The question is if emotions in God are anthropopathisms. My position is that they are. God has emotions in the same fashion that he has "eyes to see."
 
Movement in the temporal and contingent creation delimits change.

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

You are overlooking the poetry of reformed theology.
 
Originally posted by Saiph
Movement in the temporal and contingent creation delimits change.

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

You are overlooking the poetry of reformed theology.

Poetry of reformed theology?! :lol:
 
Originally posted by Saiph
There is more poetry in the bible than systematic dogma.

:amen:

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

God is a poet as well as an architect.

God is a musician as well as a mathematician.

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

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


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

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

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

Theology, not presented beautifully, is not quite accurate theology.
And beauty, without accurate theological grounding, is not truly beautiful.
 
Jerome Zanchius, The Doctrine of Abosulte Predestination:

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

From The Two Wills in God, by Matthew MacMahon:

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

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

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

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

In the final state, our emotions may not have the same mutability with respect to essentials, but we will still be embodied. We will be like Jesus, who expresed himself with human emotion in a perfect way. But in his humanity which we will share, not every attitude or emotion is felt/experienced alike at every moment. We will thus be back to a place where our emotions reflect as perfectly as a creatures' can, the righteous attitudes of God.
 
Christ came down and suffered. He cried out "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me". That was real. The Spirit is grieved. God is jealous.

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

God is immutable but not stoic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top