God's sadness for the reprobate

[he beholds]

I should apologize. I did not mean to hurt anyone's feelings, so I hope that I did not. I am sure I was perceiving some "mean-ness" that was not really there, and I was surprised, b/c the tone of this thread felt different to me than usual PB debates.
I think I was intending to be helpful, by pointing out that anger does not help one teach others a new thing, but I think I was actually rude. Sorry♥

 

[Zenas]

Group hug time?

 

[py3ak]

I should apologize. I did not mean to hurt anyone's feelings, so I hope that I did not. I am sure I was perceiving some "mean-ness" that was not really there, and I was surprised, b/c the tone of this thread felt different to me than usual PB debates.
I think I was intending to be helpful, by pointing out that anger does not help one teach others a new thing, but I think I was actually rude. Sorry♥

Except that you're forgetting that we don't have feelings to be hurt!

 

[MW]

In response to what you posited, your views were declared - not accused of being, but actually declared - to be pantheistic (of course that is nonsense because a pantheist sees God as an impersonal being - a force - if you will, because God is everything, and you clearly believe that God is a personal being). However, when you quote Warfield who uses much stronger rhetoric than yourself, the tone demured a bit and he was declared - again, not accused of being, but actually declared - to be inconsistent in his Reformed theology.

Just to put this back into context, the pantheistic statement refers to the method of seeing God as emotive because man is an analogue of God and man has emotions. As has been pointed out, this supposes that God relates to and acts towards the creation in the same way that man does, which effectively makes God a part of the creation and denies His transcendence -- pantheism.

With regard to Warfield, he is a secondary reference being quoted in the articles, and certainly would not have gone the length that the articles have gone in ascribing sadness to God. I therefore pointed out the one phrase which shows from where the inconsistency of his perspective springs.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I should apologize. I did not mean to hurt anyone's feelings, so I hope that I did not. I am sure I was perceiving some "mean-ness" that was not really there, and I was surprised, b/c the tone of this thread felt different to me than usual PB debates.
I think I was intending to be helpful, by pointing out that anger does not help one teach others a new thing, but I think I was actually rude. Sorry♥

I'm sorry, I know you wrote something but the tears falling over my eyes, which resulted from your previous post, are obscuring my vision. I nearly wrecked on the way home from work. We Marines are not accustomed to being thought of as mean.

 

[SolaScriptura]

We Marines are not accustomed to being thought of as mean.

That's ok... as I say to my flock: Jesus loves you anyway. Maybe.

-----Added 2/18/2009 at 07:10:32 EST-----

Or, in the spirit of this thread: Jesus loves you... in an unfeeling way, of course.

 

[he beholds]

Andrew, Ruben, and Rich,
I can't call you what I'd like to, since I have so recently apologized
I'll have to settle with wise guys.
But really, you're making me die laughing.

 

[sotzo]

Just to put this back into context, the pantheistic statement refers to the method of seeing God as emotive because man is an analogue of God and man has emotions.

But unless I've missed it, nobody here is saying God is emotive because man is an analogue of God and man has emotions. Rather, God is emotive because He wills Himself to be so apart from anything outside of Himself. Man is emotive because he is made in God's image and part of his image includes what He is in and of himself, part of which is emotive. Put this way, I don't see how such a view is any different than our general understanding of God's communicable attribute.

As has been pointed out, this supposes that God relates to and acts towards the creation in the same way that man does, which effectively makes God a part of the creation and denies His transcendence -- pantheism.

Agreed, but again, I don't see where anybody has said that God relates to and acts towards the creation in the same way that man does. We are bound to all sorts of contingencies....God is bound to none. But being outside the influence contingencies does not render Him emotionless.

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

Men,

Rich's last post about me was far too kind and generous. Also, I took to heart his comment that the title of my three-part article could give the false impression that God is uncaring. That's certainly not the God of John Calvin. In fact, I've returned to Part 1 of my article and added this qualifier,

The satirical lyric above is, admittedly, a bit hyperbolic and rhetorically overstated. In fact, the God of classic and Reformed theologians like John Calvin is not heartless. Indeed, Calvin himself speaks of God's "fatherly care," which he extends to "all mankind."
​

Then I cite Calvin's commentary on Psalm 24:1-12:

"We will find in many other places the children of Abraham compared with all the rest of mankind, that the free goodness of God, in selecting them from all other nations, and in embracing them with his favor, may shine forth the more conspicuously. The object of the beginning of the psalm is to show that the Jews had nothing of themselves which could entitle them to approach nearer or more familiarly to God than the Gentiles. As God by his providence preserves the world, the power of his government is alike extended to all, so that he ought to be worshipped by all, even as he also shows to all men, without exception, the fatherly care he has about them.... Now, as from the creation of the world, God extended his fatherly care to all mankind, the prerogative of honor, by which the Jews excelled all other nations, proceeded only from the free and sovereign choice by which God distinguished them" (emphasis added). Commentary on the Book of Psalms, trans. James Anderson (Reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2003), 401, 403-04.
​

I realize that Rich, Matthew and others may differ somewhat on what degree of continuity or discontinuity should be understood when speaking of divine and human emotions. But I just wanted you all to know that their comments and input have helped to sharpen my perspective and caution me to beware of overstating my case.

Gratefully yours,

 

[MW]

But unless I've missed it, nobody here is saying God is emotive because man is an analogue of God and man has emotions.

See post #10:

Fourth, I do believe that human emotions are analogues (i.e., copies) of divine emotivity.

It removes the Creator-creature distinction, and fails to account for the Creator-creature relation in the traditional terms of "voluntary condescension." It says, God IS this way in Himself, not, God WILLS to act this way towards His creatures.

Agreed, but again, I don't see where anybody has said that God relates to and acts towards the creation in the same way that man does.

Please read the articles in dispute. They deny the use of specific anthropomorphisms and teach that God actually repents and is genuinely sad.

 

[KMK]

There seems to be a paradigm represented in this thread that God is somehow less immanent if He emotes by volition. As Rich alluded to earlier, this is a false dilemma. Over two years ago I chose to place my love upon my daughter Sophie. At the time, I did not even know she existed. My wife and I entered into the adoption process as an act of volitional love. Does that mean I am less 'involved' (immanent) with Sophie because I chose to love her rather than felt love for her as I did my bio-children? Actually, my involvement with my adoptive daughter has been much more taxing than with my bio-children (if you know what I mean).

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

Ken,

When you say, "imminent," do you really mean "immanent"?

 

[sotzo]

But unless I've missed it, nobody here is saying God is emotive because man is an analogue of God and man has emotions.

See post #10.

, which states:

Fourth, I do believe that human emotions are analogues (i.e., copies) of divine emotivity.

Yes, human emotions are analogues of divine emotivity. They doesn't mean they are the basis of divine emotivity or identical in every way. In fact, calling them analogues assumes that human emotions necessarily find their basis elsewhere. And that basis (God) needs no other basis but the person of God Himself. I take Dr. Gonzales to mean this when he elaborates on the fourth point you cite above from post #10:

The term "analogy," after all, does mean "similarity or comparability." God's emotions are not sinful or physiological in nature. Nor are they ever beyond his control or determination. Indeed, he has decreed every one of his inward and outward responses to events in creation. In that sense, there is discontinuity. But God's emotions of joy, sorrow, love, hatred, pleasure, anger, and jealousy are, like human emotions, inward (i.e., spiritual or psychological) responses to events. Infinitely more complex? Yes! But genuine emotive responses with which we can identify nonetheless. Otherwise, all "anthropopathisms" would be pointless.

I'll check out his articles as you suggest.

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

To (hopefully) distance my position from Pantheism, let me offer the common definitions and some remarks:

Pantheism

1. the doctrine that God is the transcendent reality of which the material universe and human beings are only manifestations: it involves a denial of God's personality and expresses a tendency to identify God and nature.
2. any religious belief or philosophical doctrine that identifies God with the universe.
​

Note the following: pantheism or pantheistic beliefs (1) deny God's personality; (2) identify God with nature (often as the impersonal force that animates material reality).

There's a huge difference between "IS" and "LIKE." Nowhere in any of my posts or articles have I identified God with humans or divine emotivity with human emotivity. I repeatedly affirm God's self-sufficiency and independence. Furthermore, I argue that God's emotive responses are grounded in God's unchanging moral nature and eternal decree, not human actions. Warfield's "inducement from without" and my affirmation of God's "genuine responses to human events" do not negate this anymore than God's historical responses to the plight of human sin via historical acts of redemption and judgment makes his plan and work dependent on human sin. Everything flows ultimately from God's sovereign will and moral character. Nothing I've said contradicts that.

Respectfully,

 

[MW]

Yes, human emotions are analogues of divine emotivity.

You haven't proven divine emotivity. How do you propose to do it? By arguing from the creature to the Creator. To argue from the Creator to the creature in terms of communicable attributes is acceptable given that man is made in God's image; but to argue from the creature to the Creator is unacceptable because it creates God in man's image -- the very thing Romans 1 calls a vain imagination.

 

[MW]

2. any religious belief or philosophical doctrine that identifies God with the universe.

Is God related to creation LIKE man is related to creation? If not, then God cannot have similar responses to the creation which man has. To argue that He does is to maintain that He is as wedded to the world as man is, which is pantheism.

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

2. any religious belief or philosophical doctrine that identifies God with the universe.

Is God related to creation LIKE man is related to creation? If not, then God cannot have similar responses to the creation which man has. To argue that He does is to maintain that He is as wedded to the world as man is, which is pantheism.

Matthew,

Did I actually say, "God is related to creation [just] like man is related to creation"? Did I say, "God is wedded to the world as man is"? Or did you put those words in my mouth? What I have argued is that man is the image of God. What's that mean? Here's my attempt at a biblical definition:

The term “image” in the Bible translates the Hebrew word tselem in the OT and the Greek word eikon in the NT. In the OT, tselem is used of idols (Num 33:52), sculptured statuettes (1 Sam. 6:5, 11), a large statue of a man (Dan 3:1-3, 10, 12, 14-15, 18), and two-dimensional painted or carved image upon a wall (Ezek 23:14). In the NT, eikon is used for the engraving of a human face upon a coin (Matt 22:20), idols (Rom 1:23), or a visible representation of the beast [i.e., anti-Christ] (Rev 13:14, 15; 14:9, 19; 15:2; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4). To summarize the biblical data, the term “image” refers to a two or three-dimensional visible replica of an original that is predominantly concrete and physical in nature rather than abstract and immaterial.

The word “likeness” translates the Hebrew word demut in the OT and the Greek word homoiosis in the NT. In the OT, demut refers to the physical and psychological resemblance of a father and his son (Gen. 5:3). It is used to refer to building plans (2 Kings 16:10). Finally, it is used for the abstract idea of resemblance (Ps. 58:4; Ezek. 1:5, 10, 28). In the NT, homoiosis occurs only once, and it is only used of man in God’s likeness (Jas 3:9). However, a number of derivatives are used to convey the idea of correspondence. If the word “image” stresses the idea of visible representation, then the term “likeness” seems to stress the idea of corresponding resemblance.

In light of the biblical usage of these terms, we can define an “image” or “likeness” as a visible replica that represents and bears a resemblance to some original (archetype). If man is a visible replica of God, then it stands to reason that God has created man as that facet of general revelation that provides us with the clearest and closest analogue of Himself. Consequently, to know ourselves, we must know God. To know God, we must know ourselves. Once again, isn't this the point Calvin makes in his Institutes?

Nearly all the wisdom we possess, that is to say, true and sound wisdom, consists in two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves. But, while joined by many bonds, which one precedes and brings forth the other is not easy to discern. In the first place, no one can look upon himself without immediately turning his thoughts to the contemplation of God, in whom he ‘lives and moves.’ For, quite clearly, the mighty gifts with which we are endowed are hardly from ourselves…. Then, by these benefits shed like dew from heaven upon us, we are led as by rivulets to the spring itself…. Accordingly, the knowledge of ourselves not only arouses us to seek God, but also, as it were, leads us by the hand to find him.... It is certain that man never achieves a clear knowledge of himself unless he has first looked upon God’s face, and then descends from contemplating him to scrutinize himself" (emphasis added). Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, ed. John T. McNeill [The Westminster Press, 1960], 1:35-36 [Book I, 1.1]; 1:37 [Book I, 1.2]).
​

Is that Pantheism or biblical theology?

Cheers,

 

[Zenas]

2. any religious belief or philosophical doctrine that identifies God with the universe.

Is God related to creation LIKE man is related to creation? If not, then God cannot have similar responses to the creation which man has. To argue that He does is to maintain that He is as wedded to the world as man is, which is pantheism.

Just curious, could it not be that God is emotive as man while not being related to creation; specifically what about creation is controlling over emotion to the point that in order to express them a link to Creation must be had?

I don't know if that makes sense so, yeah.

 

[MW]

Is that Pantheism or biblical theology?

Calvin doesn't argue man is A therefore God must be A. The fear of God taught Him not to curiosly pry into the secret things of God. Calvin's is biblical theology; yours is pantheistic. If that sounds cold to people, I'm sorry, but you need to face up to what you are doing.

 

[MW]

Just curious, could it not be that God is emotive as man while not being related to creation

The thesis is -- God sees sin; God is sad at sin. How can that be construed in a way that makes God's emotions unrelated to the creation? The very purpose of the thesis is to prove that God enters into meaningful emotional relations with His creation.

 

[sotzo]

Yes, human emotions are analogues of divine emotivity.

You haven't proven divine emotivity. How do you propose to do it? By arguing from the creature to the Creator. To argue from the Creator to the creature in terms of communicable attributes is acceptable given that man is made in God's image; but to argue from the creature to the Creator is unacceptable because it creates God in man's image -- the very thing Romans 1 calls a vain imagination.

I think we can agree the following syllogism would lead to pantheism:

God's attributes can be established on the basis of the attributes of man
We are emotive
Therefore, God is emotive

But, I'm not proposing to prove divine emotivity starting from the creature. In the same way, I wouldn't propose establishing God's love or wisdom by starting with the creature.

Rather, his emotivity is defined by His own revelation in Scripture.

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

Is that Pantheism or biblical theology?

Calvin doesn't argue man is A therefore God must be A. The fear of God taught Him not to curiosly pry into the secret things of God. Calvin's is biblical theology; yours is pantheistic. If that sounds cold to people, I'm sorry, but you need to face up to what you are doing.

Aye-yi-yi, Matthew. I think we're speaking past each other. I didn't say, "Calvin argues man is A therefore God must be A." Nor do I deny God's incomprehensibility or the reality of mysteries in Scripture (Rom. 11). One reason I'm a compatilist and believe in God's sincere offer of the gospel to the non-elect is my determination not to "pry into the secret things of God." I try to stick with what's revealed. The Bible teaches that God thinks and man thinks; God feels and man feels; God acts and man acts. Yes, there's a whole lot of Creator-creature distinction that needs to be factored in. But if human language about God is to make any sense, it must convey some correspondence and analogy. Otherwise, we're left with the God of Karl Barth--the God who is "wholly other."

I'd love to attempt to come to a better understanding of this topic with you, but I don't want to perpetuate any needless controversy. So

May the Lord bless your day and grant me a good night's sleep.

Sincerely yours,

 

[MW]

Rather, his emotivity is defined by His own revelation in Scripture.

As noted in an earlier post, the interpreter has to read emotivity into the terms employed. At the same time he embroils the Bible in a mass of contradictions which make God A and nonA in the same way. E.g., Nothing is too hard for thee; what could have been done more to my vineyard? God is slow to anger; God is angry at the wicked every day. It repented God; God is not a man that He should repent. The interpreter chooses to take both terms in the same literalistic way and thereby represent the holy Scripture as contradicting itself. The old divinity was certainly much better because it effectively dealt with the first class of texts as referring to what God is and the latter class of texts as His condecending to act as a party to the terms of His covenant.

 

[Zenas]

I understand then.

 

[Iconoclast]

DR.Bob G,
in part 1 of your blog you wrote this in one of the paragraphs

Where does this leave our interpretation of Genesis 6:6? A literal reading of that text suggests the idea that God genuinely experienced heart-felt sorrow and even anger in response to the escalation and aggravation of human sin (6:5). If we follow the reasoning of some classic theists, however, we may have to revise our exegetical conclusions. We are left with a God who thinks (6:5) and a God who acts (6:7), but not with a God who genuinely feels (6:6). God’s remorse and pain, we are told, do not refer to the kind of feelings that would prompt the redemptive/punitive action described in the verses that follow (6:8ff.). They are, rather, God’s mode of “accommodating himself” to our finite understanding.

When I read this my reaction to these words is that as created humans we react emotionally because we are often taken by surprise,let down by other humans, or in one way or another disappointed.
As we all know this can never happen to God because of who he is as the great I AM. So I have trouble trying to use language or put into words the terms of human emotion in speaking of God's actions.
So at this point I can more easily understand the more classic explanation of God using language to

“accommodating himself” to our finite understanding.

[/QUOTE]
I will proceed to see what you offer in installment number 2 on the blog

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

DR.Bob G,
in part 1 of your blog you wrote this in one of the paragraphs

Where does this leave our interpretation of Genesis 6:6? A literal reading of that text suggests the idea that God genuinely experienced heart-felt sorrow and even anger in response to the escalation and aggravation of human sin (6:5). If we follow the reasoning of some classic theists, however, we may have to revise our exegetical conclusions. We are left with a God who thinks (6:5) and a God who acts (6:7), but not with a God who genuinely feels (6:6). God’s remorse and pain, we are told, do not refer to the kind of feelings that would prompt the redemptive/punitive action described in the verses that follow (6:8ff.). They are, rather, God’s mode of “accommodating himself” to our finite understanding.

When I read this my reaction to these words is that as created humans we react emotionally because we are often taken by surprise,let down by other humans, or in one way or another disappointed.
As we all know this can never happen to God because of who he is as the great I AM. So I have trouble trying to use language or put into words the terms of human emotion in speaking of God's actions.
So at this point I can more easily understand the more classic explanation of God using language to

“accommodating himself” to our finite understanding.

I will proceed to see what you offer in installment number 2 on the blog[/quote]

Hopefully, the 3rd part of my article will answer your question.

Your servant,

 

[MW]

I try to stick with what's revealed. The Bible teaches that God thinks and man thinks; God feels and man feels; God acts and man acts. Yes, there's a whole lot of Creator-creature distinction that needs to be factored in.

The point here, brother, is that Calvin's method of interpretation has factored in the Creator-creature distinction, but you reject that factor and opt for the modern tendency to view God as reciprocating and feeling with man. You can't reject Calvin's methodology and then lay claim to doing the same thing Calvin does.

 

[sotzo]

Rather, his emotivity is defined by His own revelation in Scripture.

As noted in an earlier post, the interpreter has to read emotivity into the terms employed. At the same time he embroils the Bible in a mass of contradictions which make God A and nonA in the same way. E.g., Nothing is too hard for thee; what could have been done more to my vineyard? God is slow to anger; God is angry at the wicked every day. It repented God; God is not a man that He should repent. The interpreter chooses to take both terms in the same literalistic way and thereby represent the holy Scripture as contradicting itself. The old divinity was certainly much better because it effectively dealt with the first class of texts as referring to what God is and the latter class of texts as His condecending to act as a party to the terms of His covenant.

Perhaps the best thing for me is if I could see an example of your exegesis of one of the notable passages on this topic in Genesis 6, which was stated earlier in the thread:

"The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain."

Thanks for bearing with me...I do want to understand better on how to reconcile these things (to the extent we can reconcile them).

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

I try to stick with what's revealed. The Bible teaches that God thinks and man thinks; God feels and man feels; God acts and man acts. Yes, there's a whole lot of Creator-creature distinction that needs to be factored in.

The point here, brother, is that Calvin's method of interpretation has factored in the Creator-creature distinction, but you reject that factor and opt for the modern tendency to view God as reciprocating and feeling with man. You can't reject Calvin's methodology and then lay claim to doing the same thing Calvin does.

Okay.

 

[MW]

Perhaps the best thing for me is if I could see an example of your exegesis of one of the notable passages on this topic in Genesis 6, which was stated earlier in the thread:

"The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain."

I am comfortable with Calvin's exegetical method, which can be found in his Commentary on Genesis. The translation should reflect the traditional "repented," and thereby allow the reader to compare this statement with other biblical usages of the word. "Filled with pain" certainly prejudices the reader's mind unnecessarily.