Does God have emotions?

[DD2008]

questions are limited to only 'calvinists'?

No. In a safe zone anyone can ask questions but only those of the denomination whose safe zone it is may debate one another. This is the Presbyterian forum.

It's just the way they run CF. At CARM and some other forums there are no safe zones. But here at CF denominational members can post their doctrines all they want without rebuke from opponents in their home forums.

I have gotten in trouble by the mods here before for violating that rule myself so I'm just letting you guys know. We'll report any anti-calvinist or anti presbyterian posts, and the mods will show up.

 

[brinny]

this is a thread with a query about God having or not having emotions, is it not?

 

[DD2008]

this is a thread with a query about God having or not having emotions, is it not?

The fact that God is immutable (cannot be moved) is a sound Reformed Doctrine that is in the bible and the WCF. Presbyterians confess the WCF as the way we interpret the bible.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

No. In a safe zone anyone can ask questions but only those of the denomination whose safe zone it is may debate one another. This is the Presbyterian forum.

It's just the way they run CF. At CARM and some other forums there are no safe zones. But here at CF denominational members can post their doctrines all they want without rebuke from opponents in their home forums.

I have gotten in trouble by the mods here before for violating that rule myself so I'm just letting you guys know. We'll report any anti-calvinist or anti presbyterian posts, and the mods will show up.

I also do the same with any "anti-Protestant" and any "anti-RC/Orthodox" posts

Why are Protestants so Anti-Catholic? - Page 101 - Christian Forums
Why are so many Protestants anti-Catholic

Why are so many Catholics anti-Protestant? - Page 79 - Christian Forums
Why are so many Catholics anti-Protestant?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I found this interesting essay awhile back but have not read thru it all yet......He brings up some interesting perspectives on YHWH and emotions.....
But like anyone's views on the Bible/Scriptures, test the Spirit and Writings to see if they are so

DOES GOD HAVE EMOTIONS

*snip*

........When we ask, does God have emotions? the most straightforward, correct answer is, Yes, because he became man. Jesus is both God and man, fully divine and fully human. So, Jesus has human emotions: joys, desires, fears, sadnesses, and so on. The Christian faith holds that Jesus is one divine person but with two natures, human and divine.[4] I do not wish here to examine in detail this central dogma (since I will concentrate on the question of whether God has emotions in his divine nature), but briefly the following should be said. ...........

 

[DD2008]

I
........When we ask, does God have emotions? the most straightforward, correct answer is, Yes, because he became man. Jesus is both God and man, fully divine and fully human. So, Jesus has human emotions: joys, desires, fears, sadnesses, and so on. The Christian faith holds that Jesus is one divine person but with two natures, human and divine.[4] I do not wish here to examine in detail this central dogma (since I will concentrate on the question of whether God has emotions in his divine nature), but briefly the following should be said. ...........

Jesus tha man certainly had emotions. But God is immoveable. The anthropomorphic statements made in scripture show us the proper way to be.

Here is a great article by Spurgeon on this: The Immutability of God

Here is a great article by Pink on this as well: 7. The Immutability of God

Here is a link about the hypostatic union: http://www.carm.org/jesus-two-natures

 

[DD2008]

I also do the same with any "anti-Protestant" and any "anti-RC/Orthodox" posts

Why are Protestants so Anti-Catholic? - Page 101 - Christian Forums
Why are so many Protestants anti-Catholic

Why are so many Catholics anti-Protestant? - Page 79 - Christian Forums
Why are so many Catholics anti-Protestant?

Since technically anti-catholicism is the orthodox position in my denomination since they do not teach sola fide and we believe their gospel is a false gospel and they teach prayers to the saints and we believe that is idolarty. We can post against their doctines all we want in our denominational forum. The same as they can against us in theirs.

I won't do it outside of a forum where opposition the roman catholicism is orthodox though.

 

[brinny]

I found this interesting essay awhile back but have not read thru it all yet......He brings up some interesting perspectives on YHWH and emotions.....
But like anyone's views on the Bible/Scriptures, test the Spirit and Writings to see if they are so

DOES GOD HAVE EMOTIONS

*snip*

........When we ask, does God have emotions? the most straightforward, correct answer is, Yes, because he became man. Jesus is both God and man, fully divine and fully human. So, Jesus has human emotions: joys, desires, fears, sadnesses, and so on. The Christian faith holds that Jesus is one divine person but with two natures, human and divine.[4] I do not wish here to examine in detail this central dogma (since I will concentrate on the question of whether God has emotions in his divine nature), but briefly the following should be said. ...........

Thank you. I will be reading this after work (cuz i'm off tomorrow) yipppeee!!!!

 

[DD2008]

Thank you. I will be reading this after work (cuz i'm off tomorrow) yipppeee!!!!

Why don't you read the reformed links I provided while your at it? Since you are in a reformed room and all, you could at least read the answers provided to the questions you asked from reformed people. It might occur to you that the bible teaches that God is sovereign, immutable, and perfect, and that you can trust him and rest safely in his arms...



That couldn't hurt could it?

 

[Judson]

Back to the OP, let's talk a bit about archetypal vs ectypal theology. I'm sure you've been introduced to this, right DD?

From what I understand, what can be known and said of God is entirely ectypal. We cannot ever touch the knowledge of God that he has of himself, we only know and can affirm what has been revealed to our language and frame of logic.

Insomuch as this is true, we can and must affirm that God displays emotivity. The biblical evidence, whether anthropomorphic or not, is clear on this much, agreed?

My issue, is that when divine emotion is relegated as anthropopathism (ie, descriptions made after the manner of human experience, not God's), isn't this saying something about the Archetype, namely, that God in his reality does NOT actually have emotions? How can we be so sure about this, when we have already said that we cannot know anything about God in his actual essence and experience?

that's my problem with "immutability", not that I don't believe it when it refers to certain aspects of God's character and plan, but "immutability" is not something that we humans can actually comprehend. To say that immutability must be static and unmoved, and that it precludes emotional capabilities is to make a pronouncement on something that is far beyond us. How do we know what it means it be immutable, or what the mechanism is like, that we can say what it contains and what it precludes? Why can't God be immutable and yet experience the full range of emotions? Why not? as long as scripture teaches it. We have theologies like the Trinity, the incarnation, etc that transcend our logic but we believe it. It is like a fish attempting to describe from its own logic what it's like for a human to walk on land - he is certainly going to wrong on some point and will sorrowfully misrepresent human beings. We have no categories at all to describe what God is like in Archetypal essence, only what has been revealed in scripture, and we should keep it to that. To say that divine immutability precludes emotion is a speculation about the Archetype which is neither necessary nor safe to perform, IMHO.

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny
Thank you. I will be reading this after work (cuz i'm off tomorrow) yipppeee!!!!

Why don't you read the reformed links I provided while your at it? Since you are in a reformed room and all, you could at least read the answers provided to the questions you asked from reformed people. It might occur to you that the bible teaches that God is sovereign, immutable, and perfect, and that you can trust him and rest safely in his arms...



That couldn't hurt could it?

i apologize...i will read them as well....i'm a bit of a bumbler....thank you for posting the links...and thank you for bearing with me as i stumble through attempting to express myself.

 

[dongt44]

I believe that i was created in the image of god, and in some sense that image includes my mental, emotional and intellectual profiles. In a very small, tinity, finite way, I believe that i do mirror him. That is why he finds joy in my prases, and is outraged at my backsliding. If God had no emotion then He Could not be moved by any action of mine.
In my design, he spent a lot of time perfecting a neural structure that is responsive to a wide array of stimuli triggering an entire range of emotions from great joy to deep grief. God must be even better endowed with these capacities. That is whay he was able to design me so well.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I am going to just lurk awhile in this thread
....I am still working on my Romans and Galatians translations which I have up on the GT board for those interested

http://www.christianforums.com/t7411599/
Book of Galatian verse by verse

 

[DD2008]

Back to the OP, let's talk a bit about archetypal vs ectypal theology. I'm sure you've been introduced to this, right DD?

Archtypal = Theology as God knows it.
Ectypal = Theology as God has revealed it.

From what I understand, what can be known and said of God is entirely ectypal. We cannot ever touch the knowledge of God that he has of himself, we only know and can affirm what has been revealed to our language and frame of logic.

This is true. We can only know what has been revealed. What has been revealed however, is that God is omnicient, immutable, omnipresent, omnipotent...perfect. How can something perfect be made any better by a change? Can something perfect be made worse? If something is perfect is there a lateral change? No. Perfection is perfect any change will make it something other than what it is which is perfect.

Insomuch as this is true, we can and must affirm that God displays emotivity. The biblical evidence, whether anthropomorphic or not, is clear on this much, agreed?

God does display what we know as emotivity. But that does not mean that he is moved by emotion as we are. He has communicated that he does not change.

My issue, is that when divine emotion is relegated as anthropopathism (ie, descriptions made after the manner of human experience, not God's), isn't this saying something about the Archetype, namely, that God in his reality does NOT actually have emotions?

Our definition of emotion means to be moved by feeling. God is the mover not the moved. Since scripture reveals that he doesn't change and works all things to the counsel of his will then that is ectypal revelation. the things revealed inthe bible require us to think and calculate in many places. Just because God never said the words "I do not have emotions", doesn't mean that what we know of as emotion isn't something else with God. God is what he is in his essence and it is all summed up as Holy.

How can we be so sure about this, when we have already said that we cannot know anything about God in his actual essence and experience?

It is our belief that God inspired the bible and that the bible has no errors, so we read in it that God doesn't change.

that's my problem with "immutability", not that I don't believe it when it refers to certain aspects of God's character and plan, but "immutability" is not something that we humans can actually comprehend.

Very true. Humans can't undersatnd fully what it means to be perfect.

To say that immutability must be static and unmoved, and that it precludes emotional capabilities is to make a pronouncement on something that is far beyond us.

It doesn't make him incapable, it makes him ultimately capable. He is perfect and love to him is far greater than what it is with us.

How do we know what it means it be immutable, or what the mechanism is like, that we can say what it contains and what it precludes? Why can't God be immutable and yet experience the full range of emotions? Why not? as long as scripture teaches it.

Our emotions come against our wills. God's righteousness is fully willed by him.

We have theologies like the Trinity, the incarnation, etc that transcend our logic but we believe it. It is like a fish attempting to describe from its own logic what it's like for a human to walk on land - he is certainly going to wrong on some point and will sorrowfully misrepresent human beings. We have no categories at all to describe what God is like in Archetypal essence, only what has been revealed in scripture, and we should keep it to that. To say that divine immutability precludes emotion is a speculation about the Archetype which is neither necessary nor safe to perform, IMHO.

Understood. However, we have studied and developed our theology based on the core belief that God never errs and that his written word is inerrant. So all of the things we know about God come from our analysis of scriptrue. Since we derive this doctrine from scriptrue it falls under the catagory of ectypal theology.

 

[Judson]

Archtypal = Theology as God knows it.
Ectypal = Theology as God has revealed it.



This is true. We can only know what has been revealed. What has been revealed however, is that God is omnicient, immutable, omnipresent, omnipotent...perfect. How can something perfect be made any better by a change? Can something perfect be made worse? If something is perfect is there a lateral change? No. Perfection is perfect any change will make it something other than what it is which is perfect.

God's perfection is unchangeable, so he is not making any lateral change in a way that increases or decreases his perfections. However, this is not to say that he is like a perfect marble statue that is static and immobile. Rather he is more like the perfection of light. Light is a dynamic particle-wave interaction, simple, but also highly complex and exhibits movement within itself.

God does display what we know as emotivity. But that does not mean that he is moved by emotion as we are. He has communicated that he does not change.

So, this would suggest that we should regard him as having both properties of emotion, while remaining unchanged in his nature. Paradoxical, but possible for God. This is how the creeds would have described God.

Our definition of emotion means to be moved by feeling. God is the mover not the moved. Since scripture reveals that he doesn't change and works all things to the counsel of his will then that is ectypal revelation. the things revealed inthe bible require us to think and calculate in many places. Just because God never said the words "I do not have emotions", doesn't mean that what we know of as emotion isn't something else with God. God is what he is in his essence and it is all summed up as Holy.

Isn't it possible that God wills himself in his immanence to feel emotion in much the same way as we do, while remaining unchanged and perfect in holiness? Consider this question: Does or Can God listen to music like we do? If one insists that God is outside of time and knows all things instantaneously in an absolute way, then the answer is no, he can't listen to music at "our level." Listening to music as we do means "waiting" and experiencing the passage of time, allowing the music to "move" us in certain ways. See the problem? Once we insist on God's transcendence at the expense of his immanence, then we end up limiting and making God smaller than he is. Ironic, isn't it?


The Bible is inerrant, that's absolutely true. But consider also that human language, logic, and experience is limited, imprecise and imperfect. We must confess that God doesn't change, but we are at a loss to know what that really means or what that looks like. At the same time, we should feel free to confess that God displays emotions, although we cannot know what that is like. Rather than saying he does not have them at all, which dangerously makes a pronouncement upon his Archetype, we should be saying that his experience of emotion is problably above and beyond ours in its reality and perfection.

 

[DD2008]

So, this would suggest that we should regard him as having both properties of emotion, while remaining unchanged in his nature. Paradoxical, but possible for God.

The Bible is inerrant, that's absolutely true. But consider also that human language, logic, and experience is limited, imprecise and imperfect. We must confess that God doesn't change, but we are at a loss to know what that really means or what that looks like. At the same time, we should feel free to confess that God displays emotions, although we cannot know what that is like. Rather than saying he does not have them at all, which dangerously makes a pronouncement upon his Archetype, we should be saying that his experience of emotion is problably above and beyond ours in its reality and perfection.

Basically, the word emotion isn't a proper word for describing the unchanging because it describes a change. I prefer to use righteousness and holiness in describing God as opposed to the mimsleading word emotion.

God is perfect. Those three words are a pretty heavy load to chew on.

And God's word is such a wonderful gift to us. It is far deeper than we will ever know. For instance in the very passage that is the standard for discussing immutability we tend to only pay attention to the "I change not" part. But if you look at the rest of it it makes the revelation even more precise..

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

Paraphrase: Because I am God I do not change that is why you sons of Jacob have not been destroyed.

In other words if he had emotions then the sons of Jacob would have been destroyed. But since he is immutable and sovereign all things work according to the cousel of his will and he doesn't change. That means he is a God that can be trusted to fullfill his word and not fly off into a rage or a mood swing like a human would.

 

[Judson]

Basically, the word emotion isn't a proper word for describing the unchanging because it describes a change. I prefer to use righteousness and holiness in describing God as opposed to the mimsleading word emotion.

But why does emotion connote change, but the various other verbs that God performs does not? When God ordains, didn't he change? When the Spirit "hovered" over the waters? when he created the world? When he elects sinners? When he sends Christ to the world? When he speaks, when he plans, when he destroys, etc, etc ... Isn't there any element of change in God when he does these things? Why is emotion the definitive example of God changing in an unacceptable way? You see, many things ought to connote change in God, but we don't admit it, and we don't consider them as hindering his perfection. i find it interesting, and I'd like to know why emotion is often singled out and placed in a different category then, say, divine cognition.

How about love? Is God's love analogous to our love, in any way? or is God's love essentially meaningless to us?

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

Paraphrase: Because I am God I do not change that is why you sons of Jacob have not been destroyed.

In other words if he had emotions then the sons of Jacob would have been destroyed. But since he is immutable and sovereign all things work according to the cousel of his will and he doesn't change. That means he is a God that can be trusted to fullfill his word and not fly off into a rage or a mood swing like a human would.

I understand Malachi in light of God's unchanging decree to have mercy on the penitent, according to Jer 18:7-10, or simply to uphold his faithfulness to his covenant with Israel in general.

Interestingly, scripture does describe God doing what we would consider "flying into a rage." Eg. his desire to kill Moses for having an uncircumcised son (Ex 4:24), Uzzah and the ark, or any number of passages in the book of Numbers?? The Bible does not shy from using such language as "The anger of the Lord was kindled against ... " or "The Lord burned with anger ...."

Don't you think that diminishing the force of these divine emotional displays in scripture and replacing it with a static, emotionless being might dangerously misrepresent God's nature, as he has revealed himself?

 

[DD2008]

But why does emotion connote change, but the various other verbs that God performs does not? When God ordains, didn't he change? When the Spirit "hovered" over the waters? when he created the world? When he elects sinners? When he sends Christ to the world? When he speaks, when he plans, when he destroys, etc, etc ... Isn't there any element of change in God when he does these things? Why is emotion the definitive example of God changing in an unacceptable way? You see, many things ought to connote change in God, but we don't admit it, and we don't consider them as hindering his perfection. i find it interesting, and I'd like to know why emotion is often singled out and placed in a different category then, say, divine cognition.

A being who errs like us can perceive change when change does not exist. God is not bound by time. We are. He being perfect is outside of time and knows everything. He is infinite. We are finite. He doesn't change.

How about love? Is God's love analogous to our love, in any way? or is God's love essentially meaningless to us?

God's love is not something that he just felt one day. It is who he is. It is part of the Divine essence.

1 John 4:8 KJV
[8] He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

I understand Malachi in light of God's unchanging decree to have mercy on the penitent, according to Jer 18:7-10, or simply to uphold his faithfulness to his covenant with Israel in general.

As Reformed theologians have long pointed out Malachi recorded that "God does not change therefore you are not consumed" to show that he doesn't change because that is what God communicated through the prophet.

Jeremiah is again anthropomorphic. There are no contradictions in scripture. The paradox of apparent passages that teach God is moved by human emotions and changes his mind are all, every one of them, solved by the conclusion that they are anthropomorphic. If not the bible would have an unsolvable contradiction.

I reccomend highly that you read Chosen by God by RC Sproul:

Amazon.com: Chosen by God (9780842313353): R. C. Sproul: Books

Interestingly, scripture does describe God doing what we would consider "flying into a rage." Eg. his desire to kill Moses for having an uncircumcised son (Ex 4:24), Uzzah and the ark, or any number of passages in the book of Numbers?? The Bible does not shy from using such language as "The anger of the Lord was kindled against ... " or "The Lord burned with anger ...."

Don't you think that diminishing the force of these divine emotional displays in scripture and replacing it with a static, emotionless being might dangerously misrepresent God's nature, as he has revealed himself?

More anthropomorphisms to communicate what God did for us in perceivable time. He used that situation for his purpose. It is recorded in scripture for all eternity for us to remember to baptize our children.

 

[Judson]

A being who errs like us can perceive change when change does not exist. God is not bound by time. We are. He being perfect is outside of time and knows everything. He is infinite. We are finite. He doesn't change.

Why does being perfect necessitate that he be outside of time and never "in" it? If he is perfect, then he must be perfect in his transcendence, as well as in his immanence. Therefore, he must have both the capability to be able to enter into time-bound experiences and the benevolence to do it. if God is perfect, then he should be able to be both fully transcendent and fully immanent at the same time, wouldn't you say? Or, are you suggesting that time is something that God "cannot" experience? How then is he perfect? That means we have experiential knowledge of something God does not have.

Jeremiah is again anthropomorphic. There are no contradictions in scripture. The paradox of apparent passages that teach God is moved by human emotions and changes his mind are all, every one of them, solved by the conclusion that they are anthropomorphic. If not the bible would have an unsolvable contradiction.

There is no reason or capability for us to resolve every paradox in scripture just as we cannot nor need not resolve the problem of evil, or the hypostatic union of divine and human natures into the one person of Christ. I do believe that some anthropomorphisms are necessary and scripture-warranted, but not every "human" quality that God has needs to be explained away like it was some disease infecting the God-head. We are made in his image, afterall.

More anthropomorphisms to communicate what God did for us in perceivable time. He used that situation for his purpose. It is recorded in scripture for all eternity for us to remember to baptize our children.

Technically, every theological proposition in scripture is an anthopomorphism, as we have discussed (ectypal theology), so there is a sense in which we know absolutely nothing about what God is truly like. it is not even right for us to call him "He", or make any statements about him at all, because we could only derive this through the anthropomorphic vehicle of language.

Having said that, I think it's appropriate for us to say things of God that he says of himself. When something is affirm we affirm, when something is denied, we deny.

 

[DD2008]

Why does being perfect necessitate that he be outside of time and never "in" it? If he is perfect, then he must be perfect in his transcendence, as well as in his immanence. Therefore, he must have both the capability to be able to enter into time-bound experiences and the benevolence to do it. if God is perfect, then he should be able to be both fully transcendent and fully immanent at the same time, wouldn't you say? Or, are you suggesting that time is something that God "cannot" experience? How then is he perfect? That means we have experiential knowledge of something God does not have.

Immanance is a characteristic of a transcendent God. He is outside of time and knows everything. However he is also involved in our lives which happen form our perspective in time, but since God is already out of time he knows everything that will happen or has happened because to him it is all heppening and before him all the time.

There is no reason or capability for us to resolve every paradox in scripture just as we cannot nor need not resolve the problem of evil, or the hypostatic union of divine and human natures into the one person of Christ. I do believe that some anthropomorphisms are necessary and scripture-warranted, but not every "human" quality that God has needs to be explained away like it was some disease infecting the God-head. We are made in his image, afterall.

God's plans can't change one iota or it will throw the whole thing off balance. He has predestined everything. One thing that happens against his will and it all changes and he is no longer sovereign because then something would have forced him to act.

Technically, every theological proposition in scripture is an anthopomorphism, as we have discussed (ectypal theology), so there is a sense in which we know absolutely nothing about what God is truly like. it is not even right for us to call him "He", or make any statements about him at all, because we could only derive this through the anthropomorphic vehicle of language.

Having said that, I think it's appropriate for us to say things of God that he says of himself. When something is affirm we affirm, when something is denied, we deny.

We do that. We describe God as he is revealed to us in scripture. That is why we never say God changes or has "emotions" because the bible speaks otherwise. The bible nowhere says God has emotions or changeable feelings. He disposition is simply Holy. His love since the bible teaches he IS love is far greater than a mere feeling. That is the kind of thing that the word "emotion" cannot but incorrectly communicate.