Where did emotions come from?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Knight said:
No problem. I will mention that Clark seems to have changed his opinion on the subject of emotion over the course of his life. For instance:

1944. Examination in Theology. Orthodox Presbyterian Church. July 7.



Another example:

1952. Review of Art and Society, by Catherine Rau. The Philosophical Review 61, No. 2 Apr.



I can hardly think of a more pleasant description of a positive emotion than a "health-giving breeze." Compare this to statements he makes 30 years later:

1983. Knowledge and Persons (44:26) (The Sangre de Cristo Lectures on the Holy Spirit, 2)



Notice Clark essentially commits the fallacy of asserting the consequent:

[Nearly] all church fights are due to emotions.
Fights are bad.
Therefore, emotions are bad.

Further, the audience member's question about Stoicism is well-taken. Consider the following statement Clark makes:

1950. Hellenistic and Roman Schools of Philosophy. In A History of Philosophical Systems Vergilius Ferm, ed. New York: The Philosophical Library.



Of course, Clark might reply that both Stoics and Christians can seek to suppress emotions without collapsing into one system. In any case, the comparison is noteworthy, and I don't find his subsequent exegesis of Colossians 3:5 to be convincing.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the resources
 
T
Knight said:
Given that the original post stated that "Emotion is unnecessary and often involuntary," that is a good question. Perhaps the reply would be that of Clark - to train oneself to "meditate and be still," by which, perhaps, it might be possible to inhibit the experience of involuntary emotions - not that I agree with such a goal.
Click to expand...
That’s something I am aiming to achieve practically. Emotions has affected my life in negative ways and caused me to make bad decisions in life. Even in joy, emotions can make one be prideful. That perhaps triggers me to think that even emotions that are not unto sin, is unnecessary.
 
I think it's easier to think of the faculties of the soul as 1. understanding 2. will 3. conscience 4. affections 5. memory, emotions would be affections. Anger for example is an affection but there is such a thing as just anger which is sinless. Given this is the Puritan Board, it might be worth mentioning that this is how the Puritans thought scripturally on the subject, see for example John Downame's Cure for Unjust Anger.
 
Where did our emotions come from? Not everything born out of the fall is sinful. Whether or not we were created with emotions or if the fall caused it, I believe, is splitting a hair.

Years ago, I would be following this post with great interest in that I held that all emotionalism, directly related to the faith, was in most ways aberrant. Today, I reject this idea. God made us emotional creatures; to be clinically without emotion would be bordering on sociopathic. Why would God ‘keep my tears in His bottle’ if he hates my emotionalism? Christ wept. What would u call this?

Recently, I have been meditating on a few things; those being, the lords supper, baptism and worship. The communion that should be occurring in these instances, should be emotionally intense. For most, it is a walk in the park. Can’t it be said that Christ is meeting w/ the bride in an intense, peculiar fashion-unlike his omnipresence? Shouldn’t we be reacting in the same intensity and if not, isn’t this idolatry? In my meditating, I have been praying for a larger portion of the Holy Spirit so as I can appreciate these moments in an intense, emotional, and fixated way. Wouldn’t u agree that to love the Lord with all your heart, soul and strength, bring into view one’s emotions? There was a day, for me, when my coprporate worship was intense. Recently, over the last few years, I have wondered why this intensity has waned. Shame on me? I have set this to prayer. I do notice, in contrast to corporate worship that my personal devotions and worship have been increased-even to the point of tears. I thank God for this.

‘Which of you fathers, if your son asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead? Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? If you then, though you were evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him.’

Luke 11:11-13

e⋅mo⋅tion   /ɪˈmoʊʃən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [i-moh-shuhn] Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. an affective state of consciousness in which joy, sorrow, fear, hate, or the like, is experienced, as distinguished from cognitive and volitional states of consciousness.
2. any of the feelings of joy, sorrow, fear, hate, love, etc.
3. any strong agitation of the feelings actuated by experiencing love, hate, fear, etc., and usually accompanied by certain physiological changes, as increased heartbeat or respiration, and often overt manifestation, as crying or shaking.
4. an instance of this.
5. something that causes such a reaction: the powerful emotion of a great symphony.
 
Last edited:
There is something about "feeling" life that makes the experience all the more worth it. I can't imagine being human without it. Of course those feelings need to be grounded in self-control. The emotions of nostalgia, a moving song or movie, of experiencing something beautiful and lovely, etc., They move me to a deeper place in life that I can't imagine life without.
 
Considering the paradigm of the fourfold state of human nature, will we have emotions in the state of glorification? Will we worship God for eternity without any strong feelings?
 
God allows those affections that he hath planted in us: he hath planted fear and sorrow in presenting dolorous objects. If a man do not sorrow in objects of sorrow, he is not a man after God’s making. God allows grief and fear in afflictions and trouble, always remembering it be with submission to him, ‘Not as I will, but as thou wilt,’ Matt. xxvi. 30.

Richard Sibbes, Christ’s Sufferings for Man’s Sin (1634) in The Complete Works of Richard Sibbes, ed. Alexander B. Grosart, Nichol’s Series of Standard Divines. Puritan Period (7 vols, Edinburgh: James Nichol, 1862-64), 1: 364.
 
Jeffrey Setiawan said:
https://biblicalogic.blogspot.com/2023/04/thoughts-on-emotions-this-article-is.html?m=1

I wrote an article on my blog about emotions. I believe that emotion is not a faculty of the soul and it is the consequence of the fall of man, though a controlled emotional reaction is not necessarily sinful in itself. Biblical virtues such as love, joy, peace, and so on are not emotions, but they are volition. What do you think?
Click to expand...

I think you are dead. Wrong.​

John 12:27​

“Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour.”

"Jesus wept."

Revelation 6:9-10​


“And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:
"And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?”
 
Sorry if I’m not getting this, but it sounds like Clark thinks we’re supposed to be Vulcans. No anger, no joy or happiness? No surprises? If this is true much of the Bible we sing was written in sin, and the Savior who expressed happiness, sadness, dread, and celebration was a sinner himself.
 
The best thing to do with the writings of Gordon Clark is to leave them on the shelf in preference to much better literature that has stood the test of time. Read Augustine, read Aquinas, read Calvin, read Perkins, read Owen, read Turretin, read Boston, read a thousand others before reading Gordon Clark in anything but small doses.
 
Reformed Covenanter said:
The best thing to do with the writings of Gordon Clark is to leave them on the shelf in preference to much better literature that has stood the test of time. Read Augustine, read Aquinas, read Calvin, read Perkins, read Owen, read Turretin, read Boston, read a thousand others before reading Gordon Clark in anything but small doses.
Click to expand...
If a minister was too heterodox for the OPC that's really saying a lot.
 
“Q I believe it is a good illustration, and I don't want to get into odious comparisons here. It is my feeling that the intellect and emotion and will are equally fundamental as aspects of the Human Soul, yet, there is in the calling and serving faith, there is an economic precedent of the intellect, that is that. And, the intellectual grasp of the way of salvation, first requires the saving of faith to both.

A I am willing to admit the intellect and volition and emotion are equally essential to a human being. Now, if that is all you mean, that is that. But - they have different functions and I hold that the intellect is a supreme function.”

GC
 
Reformed Covenanter said:
The best thing to do with the writings of Gordon Clark is to leave them on the shelf in preference to much better literature that has stood the test of time. Read Augustine, read Aquinas, read Calvin, read Perkins, read Owen, read Turretin, read Boston, read a thousand others before reading Gordon Clark in anything but small doses.
Click to expand...

I had to chuckle a little at this, if only for the ironic timing. I traveled earlier this month to the PCA Historical Center and took 10,000 photos of largely unpublished material by Clark for the purposes of writing eventual books about his thought. I've also spent the last year creating a nearly comprehensive chronological bibliography of his letters, articles, etc., which has amounted to some 50 pages. Your comment is not so much a boost in confidence that such endeavors will be looked at as having been worthwhile!

:) :clark:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top