Does God have emotions?

[Judson]

Hi fellow Calvinists,

I'd like to hear your view on God's attribute of immutability and impassibility.

Do you believe God has emotions? or are they purely anthropopatic?

thanks.

 

[DD2008]

God is immutable.

Malachi 3:6 KJV
[6] For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

God is a much greater being than us and must condescend to speak with us. So he uses statements such as "was grieved, repented" so on and so forth throughout scripture so that we can sort of understand.

He doesn't really have emotions like we do. He is grieved because he chooses to be, not like a human who is involuntarily grieved. God's anthropomorphisms show us the proper way to feel. We must take the whole of scripture knowing it is infallible and understand why passages that use anthropomorphisms to describe the "feelings" of the Ultimate Being do not contradict passages like Malachi 3:6. God never contradicts himself.

Prayer works for good because God predestined good things to be worked by prayer.

Isaiah 55:8-11 KJV
[8] For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
[9] For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
[10] For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:
[11] So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

 

[Judson]

Isn't it true that the word "change" needs to be more clearly defined? Why is God feeling emotion regarded as an impossible form of change, when God speaking, or God judging, or God performing miracles are not?

When God the Son incarnated into man, did he not change, in some sense?

Now, I do agree with you on the immutability of God, when defined as God not changing in his essence, character, or will. But I don't see why emotion is regarded as mutability, when it is clear from scripture that God delights, is angered, experiences grief, etc.

I also do not see how it is possible for us as humans to say what it's like for God to feel, if it is not analogous to our feeling. How can we know that God isn't grieved the way we are, when we have no concept of any other form of grief?

We don't even know what it's like for a dog or a cat to feel grief, but for us to say that they have those feelings, means we must assume that it's like our own feelings.

 

[DD2008]

Isn't it true that the word "change" needs to be more clearly defined? Why is God feeling emotion regarded as an impossible form of change, when God speaking, or God judging, or God performing miracles are not?

When God the Son incarnated into man, did he not change, in some sense?

Now, I do agree with you on the immutability of God, when defined as God not changing in his essence, character, or will. But I don't see why emotion is regarded as mutability, when it is clear from scripture that God delights, is angered, experiences grief, etc.

I also do not see how it is possible for us as humans to say what it's like for God to feel, if it is not analogous to our feeling. How can we know that God isn't grieved the way we are, when we have no concept of any other form of grief?

We don't even know what it's like for a dog or a cat to feel grief, but for us to say that they have those feelings, means we must assume that it's like our own feelings.

God is outside of time. He knows everything and always gets his way. God is fundamentally happy. Everything works out according to the purpose of his will. He is never surprised. The biblical expressions of his emotions that appear as change are only for the understanding of a finite mind.

Ephesians 1:11 KJV
[11] In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

He communicates his holiness through anthropomorphic terms because that is the limit of human intellect and other than the basic concept of the omnicience of God we could not understand anything else. We just know that the way God is is the proper way to be and trust in him.

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

Isn't it true that the word "change" needs to be more clearly defined? Why is God feeling emotion regarded as an impossible form of change, when God speaking, or God judging, or God performing miracles are not?

When God the Son incarnated into man, did he not change, in some sense?

Now, I do agree with you on the immutability of God, when defined as God not changing in his essence, character, or will. But I don't see why emotion is regarded as mutability, when it is clear from scripture that God delights, is angered, experiences grief, etc.

I also do not see how it is possible for us as humans to say what it's like for God to feel, if it is not analogous to our feeling. How can we know that God isn't grieved the way we are, when we have no concept of any other form of grief?

We don't even know what it's like for a dog or a cat to feel grief, but for us to say that they have those feelings, means we must assume that it's like our own feelings.

Just wanted to add a quick Welcome to CF!!!!!

 

[Judson]

God is outside of time. He knows everything and always gets his way. God is fundamentally happy. Everything works out according to the purpose of his will. He is never surprised. The biblical expressions of his emotions that appear as change are only for the understanding of a finite mind.

Isn't "happiness" an emotion? Isn't it a bit arbitrary that you anthropomorphism happiness as proper for God, but not any other emotion?

He communicates his holiness through anthropomorphic terms because that is the limit of human intellect and other than the basic concept of the omnicience of God we could not understand anything else. We just know that the way God is is the proper way to be and trust in him.

How do you know that he condescends to us anthropomorphically but is not actually like us in some attributes? In order to claim anything about what God is like in his essence, whether positively or negatively, you need to know something about his archetypal essence. But this knowledge is not available to us. We can only know and are responsible only for what has been revealed. And the scriptures reveal a God with emotions.

 

[Judson]

Thanks NRB!

 

[mlqurgw]

I am not a Presbyterian and therefore will not debate here but I did want to respond. Certainly we can believe that God has emotions. The Scriptures are clear that He loves, hates, is grieved, etc. Still we must not assume that those emotions in God are like ours. Our emotions control us in many ways that they do not in God. His emotions do not in any way change Him. His love is infinitely perfect as is His hate. He has purposed all things according to His wise and perfect will, which includes His emotions, to bring to pass good for His people and glory to His name. His grief doesn't make Him act differently any more than His anger does. He always does what He has, in perfect knowledge and wisdom, determined to do. Our emotions cause us to act foolishly and often cause us more grief. Our grief causes us pain but it doesn't cause pain in God. Our grief causes us to wish we hadn't acted or thought or desired something. That is never the case with God. Remorse is the result of sin.

 

[DD2008]

Isn't "happiness" an emotion? Isn't it a bit arbitrary that you anthropomorphism happiness as proper for God, but not any other emotion?

There is no other way to describe God to a human than to use anthropomorphisms. He is love, he is happy, he is angry...etc. We must take into consideration all of scripture when we decide what a passage means. How does a not contradict b? That is the main question that Calvin employed in his exegesis.

How do you know that he condescends to us anthropomorphically but is not actually like us in some attributes? In order to claim anything about what God is like in his essence, whether positively or negatively, you need to know something about his archetypal essence. But this knowledge is not available to us. We can only know and are responsible only for what has been revealed. And the scriptures reveal a God with emotions.

They do not reveal a God with emotions as we have human emotions. To have emotions means that one is moved by something. The word emotion is involved in moving. God is not moved. He does not change. He is immutable and impassible as revealed throughout scripture. He is the way he is and the way he is is communicated to us in human terms. If he were not then scripture would be contradicted when it says he "does not change".

Here is an article on the immutability of God by AW Pink:
7. The Immutability of God

Here is an article on the impassibility of God by Philip R. Johnson:
God Without Mood Swings

 

[kenrapoza]

Our confession, the Westminster Confession of Faith says

"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..." (WCF 2.1)

The "without passions" part is what I was referring to. I cannot improve upon mlqurgw's explanation so I will just redirect you above. I just wanted to point out how we've handled this in the past.

 

[DD2008]

Our confession, the Westminster Confession of Faith says

"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..." (WCF 2.1)

The "without passions" part is what I was referring to. I cannot improve upon mlqurgw's explanation so I will just redirect you above. I just wanted to point out how we've handled this in the past.

Cool. That's a good summary. I think Pink did a good job at explaining it as well.

 

[Judson]

There is no other way to describe God to a human than to use anthropomorphisms. He is love, he is happy, he is angry...etc. We must take into consideration all of scripture when we decide what a passage means. How does a not contradict b? That is the main question that Calvin employed in his exegesis.

So, all talk of God does not actually describe anything about him as he is?
So, if he is happy, it doesn't mean he is truly happy?

They do not reveal a God with emotions as we have human emotions. To have emotions means that one is moved by something. The word emotion is involved in moving. God is not moved. He does not change. He is immutable and impassible as revealed throughout scripture. He is the way he is and the way he is is communicated to us in human terms. If he were not then scripture would be contradicted when it says he "does not change".

This is probably a bunny trail, but when Jesus died, did the Godhead change?
Why can't God experience emotions as something intrinsic to his being, without being moved? Of course his emotions aren't like ours in the sense of being controlled by them. But why can there not be any anaology between God's sadness and ours?

 

[Judson]

By the way, DD2008. I know you from the Puritanboard, don't I? I recognize the Siberian Tiger you got.

It's me, Steadfast7, Dennis. Greetings, bro.

 

[Judson]

Our confession, the Westminster Confession of Faith says

"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..." (WCF 2.1)

The "without passions" part is what I was referring to. I cannot improve upon mlqurgw's explanation so I will just redirect you above. I just wanted to point out how we've handled this in the past.

But isn't the word "passions" something that requires some definition? it's not entirely clear what that means. Could passions refer to the classical meaning of "suffering"?

 

[gideon army]

In
2Ki 13:23 But the LORD was gracious to them, had compassion on them, and regarded them, because of His covenant with Abraham, Isaac, andJacob, and would not yet destroy them or cast them from His presence.


Compassion from the Hebrew should read:-

(1) To Love DEEPLY/ Tender Affection/ Compassion

Mat 9:36 But when He saw the multitudes, He was moved with compassion for them, because they were weary[fn6] and scattered, like sheep having no shepherd.


The Greek description of Moved with Compassion :-

1) to be moved as to one's bowels, hence to be moved with compassion, have compassion (for the bowels were thought to be the seat of love and pity)

Now in the Gospel of John's Account:-

Jhn 11:33 Therefore, when Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who came with her weeping, He groaned in the spirit and was troubled.
Jhn 11:34 And He said, "Where have you laid him?" They said to Him, "Lord, come and see."
Jhn 11:35 Jesus wept.


Isn't it consistant that that even after death, Christ still loves us/ has heaps of compassion unpon us & wants to keep on keeping on blessing us in person as protrayed in Gospel of Luke:-

Luk 24:50 And He led them out as far as Bethany, and He lifted up His hands and blessed them.
Luk 24:51 Now it came to pass, while He blessed them, that He was parted from them and carried up into heaven.



Jhn 14:9
Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, 'Show us the Father'?
Jhn 14:10 "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works.


The above account from Gospel of John even better, showing us that the heart of our Heavenly DADDY full of Compassion/ TENDER love & also cries for us.

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

GOD is beyond our immediate comprehension in our human state.
His Glory is beyond the scope of our mind.
I believe that the only way to portray GOD in our mind's eye is to associate human emotions to Him otherwise talking about GOD, especially when they were writing about him in Scripture wouldn't make any sense.
BUT, we are created in His image.
Hmmm...


Thankyou for listening.

 

[Evenstar253]

GOD is beyond our immediate comprehension in our human state.
His Glory is beyond the scope of our mind.
I believe that the only way to portray GOD in our mind's eye is to associate human emotions to Him otherwise talking about GOD, especially when they were writing about him in Scripture wouldn't make any sense.
BUT, we are created in His image.
Hmmm...


Thankyou for listening.

This is more or less what I was thinking. I believe the only accurate (or even semi-accurate) way to describe God is through metaphor, and references to God's emotions are metaphorical. This doesn't make them untrue; just the closest translation into our human experience.

 

[Judson]

We need to think about what a metaphor is. it's a comparative word where we actually that the object IS something. For example, "He is a lion in battle"

By definition, a metaphor uses imagery to convey something about a person's character, but the image should, in no way, say what that person is in essence. A person is not and can never be a lion.

Anthropomorphisms, which say that God has hands, eyes, ears, and feet can easily be explained away, because scripture says that God's essence is spirit, not matter. That's acceptable.

Anthropopathisms say that God looks like he has emotions, but he really doesn't. To use divine immutability to explain this away is a much farther stretch. that God does not change does not mean that he does not move. It doesn't mean that he does not have thoughts, make plans, or display love. If he does all of these things (which we affirm) yet does not change, then how can we say that emotion constitutes change?

I understand the desire to make God transcendent - not just a bigger version of us. but when we say that God is so beyond us that he has no emotions, or that emotions are just metaphorical, we are actually making a statement about God's essence which revelation that does not deny. But we all believe that we know NOTHING of God's actual essence. We can only know what has been revealed. No where in scripture does it say that God has no emotion, or that emotion means change in essence. Quite the contrary, scripture reveals a God of emotion.. Yet, theologians dare say something about the essence of God that is borrowed from philosophy and falls outside of scripture.

I think we need to re-orient ourselves around sola scriptura and rethink our allegiance to philosophical thinking.

 

[kenrapoza]

We need to think about what a metaphor is. it's a comparative word where we actually that the object IS something. For example, "He is a lion in battle"

By definition, a metaphor uses imagery to convey something about a person's character, but the image should, in no way, say what that person is in essence. A person is not and can never be a lion.

Anthropomorphisms, which say that God has hands, eyes, ears, and feet can easily be explained away, because scripture says that God's essence is spirit, not matter. That's acceptable.

Anthropopathisms say that God looks like he has emotions, but he really doesn't. To use divine immutability to explain this away is a much farther stretch. that God does not change does not mean that he does not move. It doesn't mean that he does not have thoughts, make plans, or display love. If he does all of these things (which we affirm) yet does not change, then how can we say that emotion constitutes change?

I understand the desire to make God transcendent - not just a bigger version of us. but when we say that God is so beyond us that he has no emotions, or that emotions are just metaphorical, we are actually making a statement about God's essence which revelation that does not deny. But we all believe that we know NOTHING of God's actual essence. We can only know what has been revealed. No where in scripture does it say that God has no emotion, or that emotion means change in essence. Quite the contrary, scripture reveals a God of emotion.. Yet, theologians dare say something about the essence of God that is borrowed from philosophy and falls outside of scripture.

I think we need to re-orient ourselves around sola scriptura and rethink our allegiance to philosophical thinking.

I don't think that we're trying to use immutability to say that God doesn't have emotions. As you have rightly implied, there is a difference between immutability and impassibility. Immutability states that God's nature or essence cannot change because He is altogether perfect and without want/deficiency, and He will always be the same God eternally. Impassibility says that God is not ruled by emotion, nor is He altered, indebted, or surprised by His creation.

I think that the concept of emotion applies to God, but in a way that us finite creatures do not fully comprehend. But it is one of His communicable attributes that we share in as being made in His image. I honestly don't really know in what sense God is happy or grieved or angered. I don't think that we can put words to that and peer behind the curtain of what God has revealed.

 

[DD2008]

So, all talk of God does not actually describe anything about him as he is?
So, if he is happy, it doesn't mean he is truly happy?

All the talk describes God as he is but one must pay attention to the rest of scripture to determine the meaning of a passage. The way God is expressed in scripture is the proper way to be in any given situation. It in no way means that God was involuntarily moved or that he changed at all. We know that God doesn't change because scripture tells us clearly that he doesn't change. So how can one possibly uphold the passage that says "I do not change" along with the passages that appear to teach he has emotions? Simple, those passages teach that God is that way voluntarily because that is the Holy way to be. God is holy and unmoveable. Reformed theologians use the law of non-contradiction to determine the meaning of scripture, not unweighed individual passages that make the unexamined mind fly from one doctrine to the next.

This is probably a bunny trail, but when Jesus died, did the Godhead change?

Jesus is both fully man and fully God. The Godhead didn't change. Jesus the man died (God's suffering servant) Isaiah 53.

Here is a link on this topic: Reformed Answers: Did God Die on the Cross?

Why can't God experience emotions as something intrinsic to his being, without being moved? Of course his emotions aren't like ours in the sense of being controlled by them. But why can there not be any anaology between God's

This is what God has done for us in scripture by using anthropomorphisms. God's love, wrath, anger, joy, are all real but not in an emotional way. He is not moved, he just is because it is holy to be that way.

By the way, DD2008. I know you from the Puritanboard, don't I? I recognize the Siberian Tiger you got.

It's me, Steadfast7, Dennis. Greetings, bro.

Hi. Good to see you here brother. I hope things aren't too cold for you in Toronto this winter.

Anthropopathisms say that God looks like he has emotions, but he really doesn't. To use divine immutability to explain this away is a much farther stretch. that God does not change does not mean that he does not move. It doesn't mean that he does not have thoughts, make plans, or display love. If he does all of these things (which we affirm) yet does not change, then how can we say that emotion constitutes change?

Think about the implications of this statement for a minute and see if you come up with the same conclusion the Reformed tradition has: God knows everything and has revealed what he wished to reveal to us through his inerrant written word the bible.

I understand the desire to make God transcendent - not just a bigger version of us. but when we say that God is so beyond us that he has no emotions, or that emotions are just metaphorical, we are actually making a statement about God's essence which revelation that does not deny. But we all believe that we know NOTHING of God's actual essence. We can only know what has been revealed. No where in scripture does it say that God has no emotion, or that emotion means change in essence. Quite the contrary, scripture reveals a God of emotion.. Yet, theologians dare say something about the essence of God that is borrowed from philosophy and falls outside of scripture.

I think we need to re-orient ourselves around sola scriptura and rethink our allegiance to philosophical thinking.

We of the reformed tradition have come to the conclusion that God is immutable through the principles of sola scriptura. Do you understand the employment of the law of noncontradiction in regards to an inerrant and infallible God breathed text?