Does God have emotions?
- Thread starter Richard King
- Start date
- Status
cupotea
Puritan Board Junior
Right, so when the Bible says "God was wrathful/sorrowful/jealous/loving" it's logical not to explain it away with appeals to philosophy.
But, look at it this way. Surely you wouldn't deny that God is merciful to the elct but will show wrath toward the reprobate?
According to your thinking, wouldn't this too, imply change?
BlackCalvinist
Puritan Board Senior
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.
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.
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.
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
VanVos
Yes and no. True that God is immanent. But HOW is He immanent? Does that contradict his transcendence? How do you reconcile the two?
The answer solves the problem. We must never accept contraditory statements from the scriptures saying "but the Bible clearly says this, and this also." They ARE reconcileable.
cupotea
Puritan Board Junior
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
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
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
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.
Emotion
EMO'TION, n. [L. emotio; emoveo, to move from.]
1. Literally, a moving of the mind or soul; hence,any agitation of mind or excitement of sensibility.
2. In a philosophical sense, an internal motion or agitation of the mind which passes away without desire; when desire follows, the motion or agitation is called a passion.
3. Passion is the sensible effect, the feeling to which the mind is subjected,when an object of importance suddenly and imperiously demands its attention. The state of absolute passiveness, in consequence of any sudden percussion of mind, is of short duration. The strong impression, or vivid sensation, immediately produces a reaction correspondent to its nature, either to appropriate and enjoy, or avoid and repel the exciting cause. This reaction is very properly distinguished by the term emotion.
Emotions therefore, according to the genuine signification of the word, are principally and primarily applicable to the sensible changes and visible effects, which particular passions produce on the frame, in consequence of this reaction, or particular agitation of mind.
Saiph
Puritan Board Junior
Saiph
Puritan Board Junior
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 ? ?
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 ? ?
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
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.
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.
Emotions are part of our makeup. So, they are representations on the creaturely level of God's nature. God is not emotional as humans are emotional. He is not passionate as we are. The thing to distinguish is that we must understand what the Scripture means when it uses emotional language (that we are familiar with from our own experience) to speak of God. We have to keep in mind, as was pointed out above, that God doesn't change. Our emotions, on the creaturely level, express God's various attitudes.
To say God is angry with the wicked every day, is to describe in clear, unambiguous, but nevertheless human terms, the invariant, implacable, permanent attitude that God has toward evil sinners.
We, on the other hand--not having omniscience, having bodies that have physiological influences on our attitudes, etc.--our emotions are constantly affecting our attitudes, and our attitudes are affecting our emotions. We may even have emotions that are not in keeping with our attitudes. Our attitudes can be very wrong, morally as well as factually. Just so, our emotional expression reflects our mutable attitudes.
In the final state, our emotions may not have the same mutability with respect to essentials, but we will still be embodied. We will be like Jesus, who expresed himself with human emotion in a perfect way. But in his humanity which we will share, not every attitude or emotion is felt/experienced alike at every moment. We will thus be back to a place where our emotions reflect as perfectly as a creatures' can, the righteous attitudes of God.
Saiph
Puritan Board Junior
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.
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
