Is God Always Happy or Joyful?

[Ed Walsh]

Greetings,

This morning I asked two family members the following questions. I was surprised by their answers. May I ask you two a straightforward question? Yes, both said, but the elder of two grimaced a bit assuming that the question was apt to be a loaded one. Here they are:

Q.1 – Do you think God, essentially considered, is always happy?

Both people answered with a quick, unreflected, NO!
I thanked them and left the room for about five minutes.

How would you answer this first question?

Then I returned to ask this follow-up question:

Q.2 – Is there a single molecule anywhere in the universe that is not maintained continuously in existence and doing precisely as God has predetermined?

Again, "no" was the answer.

But, after this question, the younger of the two changed their answer to question one from "no," to, "I don't know."

How would you answer the second question?

No discussion followed at this time but I feel a theme coming on to this Lord's Day's family time.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Ch 2 of the WCF

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

Q2 Chapter 5


I. God, the great Creator of all things, doth uphold, direct dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by his most wise and holy providence, according to his infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of his own will, to the praise of the glory of his wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.

II. Although in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first cause, all things come to pass immutably and infallibly, yet, by the same providence, he ordereth them to fall out according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.

III. God, in his ordinary providence, maketh use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at his pleasure.

IV. The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God, so far manifest themselves in his providence, that it extendeth itself even to the first Fall, and all other sins of angels and men, and that not by a bare permission, but such as hath joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to his own holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from God; who being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.

 

[earl40]

Q.1 – Do you think God, essentially considered, is always happy?

Unequivocally yes. Though scripture uses anthropomorphism to convey how God "feels" one ought not to think He ever experiences unhappiness.

Q.2 – Is there a single molecule anywhere in the universe that is not maintained continuously in existence and doing precisely as God has predetermined?

All those actions, God ordains, does not affect Him in any way shape or form as to cause any reaction (happiness or unhappiness) in Himself.

 

[Ed Walsh]

Ch 2 of the WCF

Q2 Chapter 5

Precisely. Great answer.

I have been, of late, nearly overwhelmed at the thought of our most pure, clean, perfect, simple, and everything else and more than stated in your quotes. God the Holy Trinity, in a union and communion of Persons has been, is now, and always will be, without the possibility of change, entirely happy, filled joy unspeakable, and perfect peace, beyond any definitions we can as yet imagine.

Although I didn't follow-up this morning's questions with an attempt to challenge the "no," and the "I don't know," that caught me off guard, I plan to try tomorrow. Please pray for me that I am enabled, with joy, and wisdom of the Word, to communicate this idea cleared up as much as the Lord is pleased to do or his own glory.

Praise His wonderful name.

 

[JimmyH]

The questions brought Reverend Winzer to mind. I sorely miss his input here on the PB. Doing a percursory search for 'emotion' one of the first posts relative to the topic I came up with was this one ;

https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/two-wills-of-god.47586/page-2#post-612311

Reverend Winzer is responding to this statement by a member,
"In such cases, the emotion felt by God in connection with the rejected alternative is momentary and subsumed in his delight in the desire fulfilled."

First, even momentary sorrow in God is an outright repudiation of the teaching that God is blessed for ever. Secondly, to speak of God having momentary states is to maintain divine changeability. Such is the mire into which one will be cast when he rejects the well advised theology of the reformed tradition.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Q.2 – Is there a single molecule anywhere in the universe that is not maintained continuously in existence and doing precisely as God has predetermined?

What does Our Lord teach us?

29 Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.
30 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.
31 Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows.
- Matthew 10:29-31

26 Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?
- Matthew 6:26

How many stars are observable in the universe?
About 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (Seventy sextillion) Src
[After a billion comes a trillion (one thousand times one billion). A thousand times a trillion is a quadrillion. Similarly, then for each 1000x multiple comes quintrillion, sextillion, septillion, octillion, nonillion, and decillion. FYI, a google is a 1 followed by 100 zeros.]

He [God] telleth the number of the stars; he [God] calleth them all by their names.
- Psalm 147:4

If you could count 10 numbers every second it would take 221,816,614,740,000 years (221+ trillion years) to count the number of estimated stars above in the universe. A top of the line computer made in 2013 counting to sextillion (21 zeros) would take nearly 7709 years iterate up to one sextillion (not seventy)!

Spoiler: Computer Code for Counting For Your Own Testing

static void Main(string[] args)
{
var startTimestamp = DateTime.Now;
for (int i = 0; i <= 1000000; i++);
var elapsedTime = DateTime.Now - startTimestamp;

Console.WriteLine(string.Format("{0} for 1 billion (9 zeros),", GetReadableString(newTimeSpan(elapsedTime.Ticks * 1000))));
Console.WriteLine(string.Format("{0} for 1 trillion (12 zeros)", GetReadableString(newTimeSpan(elapsedTime.Ticks * 1000000))));
Console.WriteLine(string.Format("{0} for 1 quadrillion (15 zeros)", GetReadableString(newTimeSpan(elapsedTime.Ticks * 1000000000))));
Console.WriteLine(string.Format("{0} for 1 quintillion (18 zeros)", GetReadableString(newTimeSpan(elapsedTime.Ticks * 1000000000000))));
Console.WriteLine(string.Format("and {0} for it to count up to 1 sextillion (21 zeros).", GetReadableString(new TimeSpan(elapsedTime.Ticks * 1000000000000000))));

Console.ReadKey();
}

private static string GetReadableString(TimeSpan span)
{
string formatted = string.Format("{0}{1}{2}{3}{4}",
span.Duration().Days > 364 ? string.Format("{0:0} year{1}, ", span.Days / 365, span.Days == 365 ? string.Empty : "s") : string.Empty,
span.Duration().Days > 0 ? string.Format("{0:0} day{1}, ", span.Days % 365, span.Days % 365 == 1 ? String.Empty : "s") : string.Empty,
span.Duration().Hours > 0 ? string.Format("{0:0} hour{1}, ", span.Hours, span.Hours == 1 ? String.Empty : "s") : string.Empty,
span.Duration().Minutes > 0 ? string.Format("{0:0} minute{1}, ", span.Minutes, span.Minutes == 1 ? String.Empty : "s") : string.Empty,
span.Duration().Seconds > 0 ? string.Format("{0:0} second{1}", span.Seconds, span.Seconds == 1 ? String.Empty : "s") : string.Empty);

if (formatted.EndsWith(", ")) formatted = formatted.Substring(0, formatted.Length - 2);

if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(formatted)) formatted = "0 seconds";

return formatted;
}

Notes:
Above using C# Console Application in Visual Studio

In another programming language:
1. Get the current date&time / timestamp
2. Create a for loop & iterate (count-up) to 1,000,000
3. Get a new timestamp and make the difference with the current one. This will tell you how long it took a computer to count up to 1 million.

From here forward it is a matter of multiplying the value you obtained and extrapolate how much it would take to count up to some value.

If there are even the smallest things things and/or events that are outside the providential control of God, then why should we believe any promise God has made to us?

May it never be!

 

[Ed Walsh]

How many stars are observable in the universe?
About 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (Seventy sextillion) Src
[After a billion comes a trillion (one thousand times one billion). A thousand times a trillion is a quadrillion. Similarly, then for each 1000x multiple comes quintrillion, sextillion, septillion, octillion, nonillion, and decillion. FYI, a google is a 1 followed by 100 zeros.]

These type of facts considered simultaneously with the thought that God is always present with insignificant me, giving his full attention to me at all times caused me to raise my shaking hands in praise with tears and love and fear and hope and even a sure knowledge that one day I will be so enlarged in all my capascities that I will also know as I am known. I can hardly type in the fear and awe of such a being. And I am sure there is error in my thoughts of him and that I can't for with all these thoughts understand a minuscule portion of his true self.

 

[Ed Walsh]

How many stars are observable in the universe?
About 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (Seventy sextillion)

Patrick,

You didn't go far enough. I'd be interested in the number of protons, electrons, and particularly how many neutrinos there are in the known universe.

Genesis 1:16
"...he made the stars also."​

Notice how casual the Bible's account is of all those stars it. It is as if they are noting at all. And they are insignificant when compared to the fallen creature called man. The stars are given five words in the creation story, while the rest of the Bible, containing 783,137-5 words, is about the interaction between God and man plus Satan and the elect Angels. With God himself being the primary center of all.

PS - I know that stars are mentioned elsewhere in the Bible.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Patrick,

You didn't go far enough. I'd be interested in the number of protons, electrons, and particularly how many neutrinos there are in the known universe.

The usual estimate is about 10^80 (ten raised to the power of 80) atoms in the universe. Given that most of the universe is composed of hydrogen atoms, it is reasonable to assume the same number of electrons (10^80) and protons (10^80). Hydrogen atoms compose about 74% of all known matter.

For neutrinos, one estimate is about 1.2 x 10^89.

For some more data about the universe, see:
https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/numbers.html

 

[OPC'n]

Yes he is always joyful because he never changes. On the other hand he is always wrathful because he never changes. I don't believe God experiences emotion the same way we do. We can't be joyful and wrathful at the same time. God has the same amount of love joy peace anger wrath etc all the time because 1) he is those characteristics 2) and those characteristics are unchangeable in their function, quality and quantity.

 

[earl40]

Yes he is always joyful because he never changes. On the other hand he is always wrathful because he never changes. I don't believe God experiences emotion the same way we do. We can't be joyful and wrathful at the same time. God has the same amount of love joy peace anger wrath etc all the time because 1) he is those characteristics 2) and those characteristics are unchangeable in their function, quality and quantity.

Was God wrathful before creation?

 

[lynnie]

I think what people mean is that we can grieve the Holy Spirit. You don't want to imply that our willful sin does not grieve God, in the midst of his unimaginable joy. It does, and it matters to obey Him.

 

[OPC'n]

Was God wrathful before creation?

Yes, God never changes. We get angry over an act of sin when it happens. God has known for all eternity all the sin that would happen. He has for eternity been wrathful against that sin and will continue to be wrathful against that sin.

 

[earl40]

Yes, God never changes. We get angry over an act of sin when it happens. God has known for all eternity all the sin that would happen. He has for eternity been wrathful against that sin and will continue to be wrathful against that sin.

I don't like that god at all. Sorry to sound crass, but that is not the God of scripture.

 

[OPC'n]

I don't like that god at all. Sorry to sound crass, but that is not the God of scripture.

Do you believe that God changes?

 

[earl40]

I think what people mean is that we can grieve the Holy Spirit. You don't want to imply that our willful sin does not grieve God, in the midst of his unimaginable joy. It does, and it matters to obey Him.

I will go beyond implying, and say unequivocally you can not grieve God. Anthropopathism.....

 

[earl40]

Do you believe that God changes?

No

 

[OPC'n]

No

Then he has had to have been wrathful for all eternity. If he wasn't wrathful before creation then became wrathful after creation (the fall), then he would have surely changed from being not wrathful to being wrathful.

 

[Filter]

It seems that question has to do with God's immutability and, concerning whether or not we can grieve God, His impassibility. Both of these traditionally taught doctrines have been misrepresented and twisted recently, leading to unwarranted hostility towards them (especially impassibility).

As a bit of a Thomist, I believe that indeed God is perpetually joyful and perpetually wrathful. To say otherwise is to deny His immutability and pure actuality (which I know there are various views on). I don't believe that God can be any more or less than who He is - His essence and His existence are identical. Therefore what is essentially true about Him cannot not exist or be any different than what it is. For example, it's not that God is loving and won't be unloving; it's that He can't be unloving because His nature is love (1 John 4:8 , 2 Timothy 2:13, Titus 1:2).

If one defines God's wrath as His "intense hatred of all sin" (Wayne Grudem's definition in his Bible Doctrine, p. 94), then certainly He is eternally wrathful. To deny that is not only to deny His immutability but all His justice, goodness, and other attributes, as it would suggest that God at one point is/was tolerant of sin. Again, it's not that God won't tolerate sin, it's that God can't tolerate sin - wrath against sin is His nature.

Impassibility is tougher; anthropomorphism may be sufficient to suggest that God doesn't suffer, but there are several accounts of God 'grieving' in the Bible that don't suggest it. To me, Elihu in the Book of Job asks a very difficult question: "If you sin, how does it affect God? If you multiply your transgressions, what does it do to Him?" (Job 35:6). Whether you believe Elihu is speaking wrongfully or correctly about God, there are massive implications each way.
Then again, admitting God's passibility would seem to 1) deny His aseity 2) deny His separate ontological order distinct from creation and 3) deny His immutability and pure actuality unless we suggest that He perpetually suffers, which would seemingly conflict with perpetual joy. Admitting God's passibility would seem to make Him reactive instead of proactive (sort of like denying God's work in our salvation).

To me, our God is much greater than what we can think or imagine. We are like Him, but we are not Him. The way we observe and act in our world may be hold similarities to God in the fact that we are made in His image, but they aren't going to be identical. If it isn't expressly stated or (even if it is expressly stated) emphasized in Scripture, it's not a hill I'm going to die on or channel all of my energy towards.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

God does not move from one state to another. No variableness, no shadow of turning. No passions, no parts. Immutable. God is perfectly impassioned.

God's love, wrath, and so on are not affections, or feelings, or dispositions. Rather they are relations and actions decreed by God.

 

[Herald]

There was a vigorous discussion that took place on the PB years ago about divine emotivity. I'm no expert on the topic, but I can see how anthropomorphic language in relation to divine emotivity quickly loses its relevance. If by emotion we mean God understanding His being, that cannot be argued against. God is the most perfect of all beings (1689 LBC 2.1; 2.2). If we use the word emotion to describe a subjective response by God to something outside of Himself, that is where I think we step on uncertain ground.

 

[RamistThomist]

Then he has had to have been wrathful for all eternity. If he wasn't wrathful before creation then became wrathful after creation (the fall), then he would have surely changed from being not wrathful to being wrathful.

Since on the standard gloss all attributes are the essence, he is always wrathful by definition. But that raises another question: wrathful towards what? Is wrath intentional (meaning intending towards an object)? If so, and if he is always wrathful, then the objects of his wrath--presumably creation and not the Son--must be eternal. This is Origenism.

 

[Filter]

Since on the standard gloss all attributes are the essence, he is always wrathful by definition. But that raises another question: wrathful towards what? Is wrath intentional (meaning intending towards an object)? If so, and if he is always wrathful, then the objects of his wrath--presumably creation and not the Son--must be eternal. This is Origenism.

I suppose this is contingent upon one's ontological perspective of existing things. For example (taking from Edward Feser in his book 'Aquinas'), martians don't have being (since they don't 'exist'). However, that doesn't mean that the word 'martian' is meaningless - we can still grasp the concept of martians, even though they don't actually have being. In fact, one major essence of martians is that they don't exist; whatever does exist cannot be a martian.

That being said, although God's knowledge is eternally perfect (He doesn't learn anything chronologically - all of His knowledge is immediate), there still, at least to us as finite beings existing within the constraints of time, a sense of chronology. And in this sense God 'knew/knows' what evil is (anything not in conformity to His nature/decrees), even if that concept of evil was yet to be manifest or actualized in reality. Therefore, the objects of His wrath would not need to have being eternally in order for God's wrath against the concept of evil to have being (see the peripatetic axiom). Something doesn't need to be paired to an 'act of existing' (To use Thomas Aquinas' terminology) in order to be conceptualized and therefore objected for or against.

 

[OPC'n]

Since on the standard gloss all attributes are the essence, he is always wrathful by definition. But that raises another question: wrathful towards what? Is wrath intentional (meaning intending towards an object)? If so, and if he is always wrathful, then the objects of his wrath--presumably creation and not the Son--must be eternal. This is Origenism.

I've never heard of Origenism so I looked it up and here's what I found. "The opinions of Origen of Alexandria, who lived in the 3d century, one of the most learned of the Greek Fathers. Prominent in his teaching was the doctrine that all created beings, including Satan, will ultimately be saved."

I'm not sure what that has to do with what you're speaking about. Maybe he had another doctrine you can explain.

Why must we be eternal in order for God to have wrath against each person who has ever existed? Seems to me you're putting the emphasis on man rather than on God.

It's beyond our ability to understand life without time because we aren't eternal. But maybe this example can be beneficial in trying to understand it in a humanly way. God's knowledge to him is like our hand to us. Our hand has always been with us. We can't remember when we didn't have our hand. It is apart of who we are. God's knowledge is who he is. He has never been without his knowledge. Therefore, his knowledge is eternal. What makes up his knowledge? All things. Therefore, we have existed in his knowledge for all eternity. Does that make us eternal? Well, no because I'm of a certain age and so is the next person. We have a birthdate. What is eternal then? God's knowledge of us is eternal.

We can't decide that God does not have eternal knowledge in order to prevent some weird doctrine that says, "If God knew about us for all eternity, that makes us eternal.". Not only is that not logical from a human standpoint of evidence (our birthdate), but it's not logical from a God characteristic standpoint. God can't be omniscient and at the same time not know about future births. So what takes precedence? God's omniscience takes precedence and then we have to work things out from there. We know from Scripture that God is omniscient. We know from Scripture that he is the one who is eternal. So what does that make us? That makes us human beings who were formed in our mother's womb which God in all eternity decided when, where and to whom we would be born.

Now, since God has always known from all eternity each person who would be formed in the womb and all the sin they would commit, why is it hard for us to understand that God's wrath has burned from all eternity against that sinner that would be born on such and such a date? We know that God doesn't change. He didn't become wrathful against that sinner at the time of that person's birth. That would make him changeable.

When Christ came and paid for God's children's sins by taking God's wrath upon himself, God's wrath did not disappear from himself. Again that would be God changing from being wrathful to being not wrathful. His wrath doesn't wax or wane within Himself. It's unchanging. His wrath is not upon us anymore because of what Christ did. Well, what happened to his wrath then? He just turned his wrath away from us. We don't feel his wrath but that doesn't mean his wrath has disappeared or has changed in intensity. It only means we aren't under his wrath .... his wrath that never changes in quality or quantity.

 

[lynnie]

When scripture seems to present two things that don't seem to fit together, you need to believe them both. Election and moral culpability for unbelief. God is one and three. Etc.

I know John Frame isn't highly regarded here by some, but I appreciate him deeply. He has a section in one book about how impassiblity does not negate a clear biblical presentation of a God who can be grieved. I personally think that God is so pure and holy and perfect that whatever his grieving looks like is immeasurably deeper than any human sorrow tainted by our sin nature. Yet he exists in perfect joy. Light is a wave and a particle.....how can it be both?

Some things are a mystery.

 

[Ed Walsh]

Then he has had to have been wrathful for all eternity. If he wasn't wrathful before creation then became wrathful after creation (the fall), then he would have surely changed from being not wrathful to being wrathful.

Hi Sarah,

I know this post is a little late, but I read this just now from Fisher's Catechism and thought it was relevant to your reductio ad absurdum.

Question 21-22 are for context. Question 23 is the one I have in mind in regards to your statement:

From the Westminster Shorter Catechism

QUESTION 4. What is God?
ANSWER: God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable,
in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.

OF THE NATURE AND PERFECTIONS OF GOD IN GENERAL
Sub questions 21-23​

Q. 21. What are the rays of divine glory in the face of Jesus Christ by which we come to know God savingly?
A. They are the attributes and perfections of his nature, by which he is pleased to manifest himself; such as, that he is infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.

Q. 22. Are these attributes of God, distinct things from God himself, or the divine essence?
A. By no means; for, whatever is in God, is God himself; and therefore the infinity of all perfection, is inseparable from the divine essence.

Q. 23. Are the divine attributes separable from one another, so as that which is infinite should not be eternal, and that which is infinite and eternal, should not be unchangeable, and so of the rest?
A. All perfections whatsoever being inseparable from God, must also be inseparable from one another; for though we, through weakness, must think and speak of them separately, yet all of them taken together, are, properly speaking, but the one infinite perfection of the divine nature, which cannot be separated from it, without granting that God is not infinitely perfect, which would be the height of blasphemy to suppose.

 

[RamistThomist]

"The opinions of Origen of Alexandria, who lived in the 3d century, one of the most learned of the Greek Fathers. Prominent in his teaching was the doctrine that all created beings, including Satan, will ultimately be saved."

He taught much more than that. He had such a strong view of divine simplicity that the objects of God's will were also eternal, which led him to posit an eternal creation.

 

[Taylor]

In my own opinion, some questions which deal with the divine nature, being inherently speculative, really ought never to be asked, for reasons exhibited in this very thread. God is incomprehensible, after all. He can be understood, of course, but the moment we start asking questions like these, I believe we may be trying to penetrate too deeply into the uncreated for our created minds to cope.

 

[earl40]

In my own opinion, some questions which deal with the divine nature, being inherently speculative, really ought never to be asked, for reasons exhibited in this very thread. God is incomprehensible, after all. He can be understood, of course, but the moment we start asking questions like these, I believe we may be trying to penetrate too deeply into the uncreated for our created minds to cope.

Many times what you said is correct but this subject. To incorrectly think God has anger (or any emption) in Himself is touching on a doctrine we ought to study and embrace as Christians correctly. I understand this is a touchy subject for both sides, and in my opinion is one that ought to be discussed with passion and understanding. I hope some of out Pastors here will chime in, for I know many Pastors will not even address this subject because of the emotions involved.

This discussion is all part of the of the dual natures of Jesus and ought to be contemplated deeply and with great humility. For I know at one time I mixed the natures of Jesus on this subject, and greatly regret such.

 

[Taylor]

Many times what you said is correct but this subject. To incorrectly think God has anger (or any emption) in Himself is touching on a doctrine we ought to study and embrace as Christians correctly. I understand this is a touchy subject for both sides, and in my opinion is one that ought to be discussed with passion and understanding. I hope some of out Pastors here will chime in, for I know many Pastors will not even address this subject because of the emotions involved.

This discussion is all part of the of the dual natures of Jesus and ought to be contemplated deeply and with great humility. For I know at one time I mixed the natures of Jesus on this subject, and greatly regret such.

I’m not saying this subject is unimportant. But there is a difference between affirming and cherishing necessary doctrines in an orthodox manner while still struggling with how those truths exactly flesh out or how they “work.” But we still have to remember that God is incomprehensible, and his ways are not ours. I only said what I said on this subject, first, because of the very nature of the subject, and second, because there have already been in this thread implicit accusations of brothers and sisters worshipping other gods, all over such a difficult—and likely truly incomprehensible—subject for finite minds to begin with.

I’ve seen this with discussions surrounding the Trinity. I have seen orthodox, Nicene trinitarians accused of heresy simply because they failed to give an explanation or analogy of how the Trinity “works” that satisfied the other party, despite the fact that both affirmed Nicea and Chalcedon. That’s when these discussions go too far. The creeds and confessions have wisdom in that they state the doctrine without trying to flesh it out. Sometimes that’s all we should do. God is unchangeable, impassible, eternal. Full stop. Go no further. Calvin has this wisdom, as well.

Others may disagree, of course, and everyone is free to have their opinion, but this is mine.