This is more of a question directed to those who believe that God does not love the reprobate in any way other than forbearance, and/or to those who believe that God does not the desire the salvation of the reprobate:

do you believe that God feels any sadness for the reprobate, either because of their eternal damnation or any temporary suffering here on Earth? Let me give an example: today at work an elderly woman slipped on water and broke her back. If she is reprobate, does God a) not care, b) feel sadness for her suffering, c) enjoy her pain because she is wicked and deserves it, or d) other?

If God has no love for the reprobate, I don't understand how He could then feel any sadness for her suffering. What are your thoughts on this?

Originally Posted by AThornquist

do you believe that God feels any sadness for the reprobate, either because of their eternal damnation or any temporary suffering here on Earth?

When the Shorter Catechism says man's chief end is to glorify God, does it mean we are to add to His glory or simply that we manifest the glory that is His? Traditionally Christians have said that we are to manifest His glory, and that man cannot add anything to the essential glory and blessedness of the infinite, eternal and unchangeable God. If that is the case, then the failure to glorify God does not detract from His essential glory and blessedness, but is chargeable because it does not manifest that glory which belongs to Him. It should therefore be considered fundamental to belief in the God of the Bible that human goodness does not help Him and human sin does not harm Him.

Further, when speaking of God feeling anything, it should be clear that God is being discussed in human terms to accommodate our weakness, not to give us the impression that God actually has feelings. But if it is at all appropriate to speak of God desiring things, then it should be clear that such desires are the consequence of fulness, not of lack. If God desires to save a man it is because it pleases Him to communicate His fulness to man, not because it meets some psychological need in God. That being the case, it is contradictory to speak of unfulfilled desires in God for the simple reason that such desires do not communicate God's fulness to the creature but can only be construed in terms of a divine need which is left void and frustrated.

The Christian Church of today needs to return to the creed of the Bible -- God blessed for ever, Rom. 9:5; the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords, 1 Tim. 6:15.

Originally Posted by AThornquist

This is more of a question directed to those who believe that God does not love the reprobate in any way other than forbearance, and/or to those who believe that God does not the desire the salvation of the reprobate:

do you believe that God feels any sadness for the reprobate, either because of their eternal damnation or any temporary suffering here on Earth? Let me give an example: today at work an elderly woman slipped on water and broke her back. If she is reprobate, does God a) not care, b) feel sadness for her suffering, c) enjoy her pain because she is wicked and deserves it, or d) other?

If God has no love for the reprobate, I don't understand how He could then feel any sadness for her suffering. What are your thoughts on this?

Andrew,

I think your question is important theologically and practically. The simple answer is provided in Genesis 6:6: "The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain." So, yes, God does, according to this text, feel sadness vis-a-vis the sin and misery of the non-elect.

Of course, I'm well aware that some, like Matthew above, are afraid that ascribing to God anything analogous to human emotions threatens his transcendence, sovereignty, and perfection. While I share Matthew's commitment to these theological truths, I do not share his rejection of divine emotivity. And there are Reformed theologians who would demur as well. If you care to read my exposition of Genesis 6:6 as it bears on the question of whether God feels sadness in response to human sin and misery, click on the following links:

"There is No Pain, You Are Misreading": Is God "Comfortably Numb"? Part 1
Here I cite a number of classical and Reformed theologians who advocate Matthew's approach above.

"There is No Pain, You Are Misreading": Is God "Comfortably Numb"? Part 2
Here I note that a number of Reformed theologians, including Charles Hodge, James Boyce, Benjamin Warfield, J. O. Buswell, Robert Reymond, John Frame, and Michael Horton, affirm that God responds to historical events emotively in a way that analogous (though not identical) to human emotive responses.

"There is No Pain, You Are Misreading": Is God "Comfortably Numb"? Part 3
Here I attempt to provide a synthesis of the biblical data. First, I argue that God's emotional faculties are the archetype of human emotions, which are the ectype. Second, I also try to demonstrate that the biblical writers portray God from two perspectives: as the sovereign and unchangeable God above time and space, and also as the covenant Lord who enters into and responds within the matrix of time and space. Third, I offer some comments on the Confession's depiction of God as "without body, parts, or passions" (II, 2).

Hope it's helpful.

Your servant,

Originally Posted by Dr. Bob Gonzales

Of course, I'm well aware that some, like Matthew above, are afraid that ascribing to God anything analogous to human emotions threatens his transcendence, sovereignty, and perfection.

I have no difficulty in ascribing to humans an emotivity which is a creaturely analogy of the Creator's commitment to His creation; but this is something altogether distinct from remaking God in man's image and ascribing emotivity to God as something analogous to man's creaturely response to his created environment.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by Dr. Bob Gonzales

Of course, I'm well aware that some, like Matthew above, are afraid that ascribing to God anything analogous to human emotions threatens his transcendence, sovereignty, and perfection.

I have no difficulty in ascribing to humans an emotivity which is a creaturely analogy of the Creator's commitment to His creation; but this is something altogether distinct from remaking God in man's image and ascribing emotivity to God as something analogous to man's creaturely response to his created environment.

Matthew,

First, if you'll read carefully my response above, you'll note that I describe divine emotivity as the "archetype" (def. "the original pattern or model") and human emotivity as the "echtype" (def. "a reproduction; copy"). Since you're well aware of the meaning of these terms, you mistakenly construe my comments above as essentially "remaking God in man's image."

Second, defining human emotivity as "a creaturely analogy of the Creator's commitment to His creation" calls, I think, for more explanation--especially in light of Andrew's question. The Bible ascribes to God the emotive responses of joy, anger, love, hatred, sorrow, pleasure, jealousy, and peace. Are all these emotive responses simply synonymous and properly understood under the rather generic (and vague) concept of "the Creator's commitment to His creation"? When an unconverted elderly woman slips on water and breaks her back or an unconverted woman is raped or a doctor performs multiple abortions, are we simply to respond, "The Creator's committed to His creation"? I suspect that you, as a pastor, would say more. What then does Moses mean when he speaks of God's grief over the proliferation of human sin and misery on the earth in Genesis 6:6?

Your servant,

Originally Posted by Dr. Bob Gonzales

First, if you'll read carefully my response above, you'll note that I describe divine emotivity as the "archetype"

Saying it doesn't make it so. You start out calling men analogues of God, but in reality you make God an analogue of man, arguing from human emotivity to divine. It is one thing to establish what man is in relation to God, quite another to establish what God is in relation to man.

If I remember correctly, the board admins have already circumscribed how far you can go with this on the Puritanboard.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by Dr. Bob Gonzales

First, if you'll read carefully my response above, you'll note that I describe divine emotivity as the "archetype"

Saying it doesn't make it so. You start out calling men analogues of God, but in reality you make God an analogue of man, arguing from human emotivity to divine. It is one thing to establish what man is in relation to God, quite another to establish what God is in relation to man.

Matthew,
"Saying it" does in fact define what I mean. The fact that you claim I don't really mean what I say I mean "doesn't make it so." If you have time, please read all three of my posts before drawing hasty and faulty conclusions. Here is an excerpt from the 3rd post that addresses your caveat:

Traditionally, Bible interpreters have reserved these expressions [i.e., "anthropomorphisms" and "anthropopathisms"] for some language about God. But since all special revelation comes to us via human language, then all special revelation is, in one sense, “anthropomorphic" (See Vern Poythress, God-Centered Biblical Interpretation [Presbyterian & Reformed, 1999], 32-36). Furthermore, since the heavens declare the glory of God (Ps. 19:1; Rom. 1:19-20), then we may speak of general revelation as, in a sense, “anthropopomorphic” or, more generally, “cosmomorphic" (James Jordan, Through New Eyes: Developing a Biblical View of the World [Wipf & Stock, 1988], 19-26; idem, Creation in Six Days: A Defense of the Traditional Reading of Genesis One [Canon Press, 1999], 105-11; John Frame, The Doctrine of God [Presbyterian & Reformed, 2002], 366-68.). Of course, this line of reasoning corresponds nicely with man’s identity as “the image of God” (Gen. 1:26-27). As such, human beings are analogues of God. More precisely, we are visible replicas and representatives of the invisible God. Hence, we might even reverse the tables and refer to humans as “theomorphs” and human language as “theomorphic.” (Moisés Silva, God, Language, and Scripture, vol. 3 in Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation, ed. Moisés Silva [Zondervan, 1996], 206). Consequently, there is a reciprocal interplay between our knowledge of God and our knowledge of ourselves (and the world around us). This is the note on which Calvin begins his famous 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.

Conversely, writes Calvin, “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" (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]).

I hope these remarks clarify my position.

If I remember correctly, the board admins have already circumscribed how far you can go with this on the Puritanboard.

I explained my view of divine emotivity to the administrators and, as I recall, they judged them to be consistent with Reformed orthodoxy. My view is consistent with the perspectives of Charles Hodge, B. B. Warfield, Robert Reymond, and Michael Horton--theologians that are, I believe, respected on this board. If there's something I said in my response to Andrew, in the posts for which I gave links, or in my responses to you that is unorthodox or discourteous, I am willing to be corrected.

Sincerely,

Thank you for the input, guys. And thank you for the links, Dr. Gonzales; I will check them out.

Originally Posted by Dr. Bob Gonzales

I hope these remarks clarify my position.

Not really, because you stop short of the section where you proceed to correct Calvin. Your "Two logical inconsistencies" in Calvin’s reasoning are nothing more than rejections of the traditional understanding of anthropomorphism. You accomplish this by making all Scripture anthropomorphic and thereby nullify the specific category of anthropomorphism in which God is expressly said to interact as if He were a man. It is clear as day that you are not arguing for seeing man as something as a result of being an analogue of God, but instead are asserting that God is something as a result of being an analogue of man. You are looking behind the accommodated revelation of Scripture into the secret things of God. You are misusing the archetype-ectype language of the traditional theology, and by so doing are failing in your attempt to pass off your pantheistic views as somehow consistent with reformed theology.

[quote=armourbearer;549251]

Originally Posted by Dr. Bob Gonzales

I hope these remarks clarify my position.

It is clear as day that you are not arguing for seeing man as something as a result of being an analogue of God, but instead are asserting that God is something as a result of being an analogue of man. You are looking behind the accommodated revelation of Scripture into the secret things of God. You are misusing the archetype-ectype language of the traditional theology, and by so doing are failing in your attempt to pass off your pantheistic views as somehow consistent with reformed theology.

Brother,

I believe your accusing me of "pantheistic views" is quite unfounded and unfair as is your insistence that despite all I say to the contrary, I really believe humans are the archetype and God is the echtype. I could accuse you of espousing and promoting Greek philosophical thought instead of biblical theology. But I won't. I don't believe you're consciously doing that. I believe that you're attempting to be true to Scripture, as am I. Therefore, let's avoid ad hominem arguments.

Let the following be clear: first, I affirm God's self-sufficiency and independence. He is neither coterminous nor identical with creation. I reject Deism, Pantheism, Panentheism, Process Theology, and Open Theism as heresies.

Second, I affirm God's absolute sovereignty. He is the ultimate cause behind every event including his own emotive responses within the matrix of human history. In that sense, He is not passive or passible.

Third, I affirm that God's essential nature and moral attributes are unchangeable. That is, "God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in his being, power, wisdom, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth." So God never grows more or less powerful, wise, holy, just, good, or trustworthy.

Fourth, I do believe that human emotions are analogues (i.e., copies) of divine emotivity. As such, human emotivity constitutes a part of general revelation which reveals to us analogically truth about God. Consider the words of the Psalmist: "As a father shows compassion to his children, so the LORD shows compassion to those who fear him" (Psa. 103:13). I doubt you would accuse the Psalmist of attempting to "remake the Creator after man's image" simply because he likens God's compassion to that of a human father for his children. In reality, you and I both affirm the analogical nature of human emotions and reject any proposal that they are univocal with divine emotivity. Where we differ has to do with the ways in which and degree to which divine and human emotions correspond. Admittedly, I believe that you (and Calvin) read too much discontinuity and, perhaps unwittingly, undermine any genuine correspondence. 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.

Fifth, I agree with Benjamin Warfield's perspective on divine emotivity:

We have a God who is capable of self-sacrifice for us…. Now herein is a wonderful thing. Men tell us that God is, by very necessity of His own nature, incapable of passion, incapable of being moved by inducement from without; that he dwells in holy calm and unchangeable blessedness, untouched by human sufferings or human sorrows for ever,–haunting

The lucid interspace of world and world,
Where never creeps a cloud, nor moves a wind,
Nor ever falls the least white star of snow,
Nor ever lowest roll of thunder moans,
Nor sound of human sorrow mounts to mar
His sacred, everlasting calm.

Let us bless God that it is not true. God can feel; God does love. We have Scriptural warrant for believing, as it has been perhaps somewhat inadequately but not misleadingly phrased, that moral heroism has a place within the sphere of the divine nature: we have Scriptural warrant for believing that, like the hero of Zurich, God has reached out loving arms and gathered to his own bosom that forest of spears which otherwise had pierced ours. But is not this gross anthropomorphism? We are careless of names: it is the truth of God. And we decline to yield up the God of the Bible and the God of our hearts to any philosophical abstraction. We have and we must have an ethical God; a God whom we can love, in whom we can trust (“Imitating the Incarnation,” in The Person and Work of Christ [Presbyterian and Reformed, 1950], 570-71.).

One might be tempted to take Warfield's statement here out of context and identify him as the modern precursor to Process Theology or Open Theism. That, however, would be a serious mistake. We know from his other writings and sermons that he was unreservedly committed to the doctrines of God's transcendence, sovereignty, and immutability. I would humbly request that you give me the benefit of the doubt instead of insinuating on this public forum that I'm some kind of closet pantheist.


In Christ,

God cannot have any emotions, affections or passions in regard to the things that happen to us on earth, because He is infinite eternal and unchangeable. God not only foreknows all things that will happen, but to him they are as if they have already happened, and so implying that God actually feels anything about those events, pain or suffering, past or future, is to suggest that he is bound to be moved by His own eternal decrees and choices even before they happen, which is a contradiction. In Exodus we read God predicting how He will be angry with the Israelites for their future unfaithfulness and sin. Whenever such language is used, we are to understanding it as an objective knowledge of what man feels, or what a man would feel if taking on God's cause in such and such a circumstance. Thus, we could say that God knows what are pains feel like because he is all powerful and can obviously place Himself in our shoes, but to say that he experiences anything in time like we do such as anger, joy, suffering, love, etc, is absurd. Besides, it is in the nature of the Hebrew language to use much anthropomorphism when describing the nature of God, just as it uses much earthly language in describing spiritual things, thus any attempt to use the Old Testament to support a view that God does indeed feel some sort of "pain" for the reprobate that is properly "His" or whatever is futile.

Dear Reverand Winzer,

Some of us, me in particular, aren't as well read in regards to these categories of theological thought. Can you explain a little more how your view differs from Dr. Gonzales, in particular how his conclusions are "nothing more than rejections of the traditional understanding of anthropomorphism."

I understand some of your statements, I think I do anyway, but I'm not quite catching on. How or what, in particular, is the traditional view vs what he is saying?

Thanks,

Thomas

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by Dr. Bob Gonzales

I hope these remarks clarify my position.

Not really, because you stop short of the section where you proceed to correct Calvin. Your "Two logical inconsistencies" in Calvin’s reasoning are nothing more than rejections of the traditional understanding of anthropomorphism. You accomplish this by making all Scripture anthropomorphic and thereby nullify the specific category of anthropomorphism in which God is expressly said to interact as if He were a man. It is clear as day that you are not arguing for seeing man as something as a result of being an analogue of God, but instead are asserting that God is something as a result of being an analogue of man. You are looking behind the accommodated revelation of Scripture into the secret things of God. You are misusing the archetype-ectype language of the traditional theology, and by so doing are failing in your attempt to pass off your pantheistic views as somehow consistent with reformed theology.

If the angels in heaven rejoice over one saved soul, what do they do with the damned?

What does God do?

I think the problem lies with man equating our emotions in a sinful state to be the same as God's in a perfect state.

God definitely has emotions, but they are perfect and not tainted by sin as ours are. So for example, "God is jealous" and this is NOTHING likened to man's sinful jealousy. In fact since God is perfect, He must be jealous for His own glory as only He is worthy.

Originally Posted by Neogillist

God cannot have any emotions, affections or passions in regard to the things that happen to us on earth, because He is infinite eternal and unchangeable. God not only foreknows all things that will happen, but to him they are as if they have already happened, and so implying that God actually feels anything about those events, pain or suffering is to suggest that he is bound to be moved by His own decrees and choices, which is a contradiction.

Dear Jean-David,

Thanks for your input. I appreciate your desire to maintain God's eternity, immutability, foreknowledge, and omniscience. I affirm these truths without hesitation. I do not, however, understand your assertion that for God to be bound by his own decrees and choices is "a contradiction." If God determined to send his Son into the world to be a propitiation for our sins, hasn't he freely "bound himself" to carry out that redemptive work in time and space? Are you suggesting that God may act contrary to his own decrees? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point, but it would be helpful if you could clarify.

It is in the nature of the Hebrew language to use much anthropomorphism when describing the nature of God, just as it uses much earthly language in describing spiritual things, thus any attempt to use the Old Testament to support a view that God does indeed feel pain for the reprobate or whatever is futile.

I teach both biblical Hebrew and Greek. I can assure you that there is nothing intrinsic to the Hebrew language that renders the use of "anthropomorphisms" more necessary than any other language (see James Barr, The Sematics of Biblical Language, pp. 8-20; Donald Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, pp. 44-45). Not surprisingly, the NT writers ascribe emotivity to God using Greek. In point of fact, the Bible uses no other language but human language to describe God. Human language, being a copy of divine language, is an adequate vehicle to teach us who God is and what He requires of us (see Moises Silva, God, Language, and Scripture, vol. 3 in Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation, 205-17).

It might be helpful to this discussion if you could explain what the biblical writers actually meant when describing God as grieved and pained in his heart in light of the spread of human sin and misery? What does it mean when the Psalmist affirms that God pities or is compassionate towards those who fear him as a father pities his children? What does Jesus mean when he assures his disciples, who were once children of wrath, that they are now the objects of the Father's love because they love Jesus and keep his commandments? Are we to empty all these expressions of any genuine feeling or pathos? Is God a-pathetic? Does he simply punish evil-doers and reward the righteous without any feeling whatsoever?

Gratefully yours,

-----Added 2/17/2009 at 12:07:01 EST-----

Originally Posted by Denton Elliott

I think the problem lies with man equating our emotions in a sinful state to be the same as God's in a perfect state.

God definitely has emotions, but they are perfect and not tainted by sin as ours are. So for example, "God is jealous" and this is NOTHING likened to man's sinful jealousy. In fact since God is perfect, He must be jealous for His own glory as only He is worthy.

Good point, Denton. I wholeheartedly agree. We must be careful to disassociate any sinful characteristics of human emotions from God. God's feelings are unchangeably consistent with his holy, wise, just, good, and trustworthy nature.

Your servant,

-----Added 2/17/2009 at 12:21:42 EST-----

Originally Posted by Pergamum

If the angels in heaven rejoice over one saved soul, what do they do with the damned?

What does God do?

Hey Perg,

Good questions. Of course, there is debate whether the "rejoicing in the presence of the angels" over one sinner who repents (Luke 15) is referring to God's emotive response or that of the angels. Whatever the case, there are other texts which ascribe emotive responses to angelic beings (see Job 38:7; Pss. 103:20; 148:2; Rev. 5:11-14). This demonstrates that emotions are not essentially physiological but psychological. Hence, the fact that God is pure "Spirit" does not preclude the attribution of genuine emotivity to him.

So how do the angels and/or God feel about the damned? If you're referring to the non-elect this side of eternal punishment, then I'd say he feels such emotions as sadness, grief, anger, and jealousy. I would also affirm that God, at one level, genuinely desires that they turn from their sins (and punishment) and live (Deut. 5:29; Isa. 45:22; Ezek. 33:11; Luke 13:34; John 5:34). On the other side of eternal punishment, the righteous shall praise God for his vengeance and justice (Rev. 19:1ff.). I think we can assume that God will feel a sense of satisfaction in that his justice will have been satisfied and his glory vindicated (Rom. 9:22, 23; 11:33-36).

Your servant,

Originally Posted by Dr. Bob Gonzales

I could accuse you of espousing and promoting Greek philosophical thought instead of biblical theology. But I won't.

But you do; your articles make this precise claim:

one may find analogous reasoning among some Greek philosophers.

You make this claim but then take offence at seeing the heathen origins of your own thinking exposed.

Originally Posted by Dr. Bob Gonzales

Let the following be clear: first, I affirm God's self-sufficiency and independence. He is neither coterminous nor identical with creation. I reject Deism, Pantheism, Panentheism, Process Theology, and Open Theism as heresies.

If God is self-sufficient and independent then His blessedness in no sense depends upon or is affected by the creation He has made. The fact that your teaching on divine emotivity makes His blessedness to depend upon and be affected by the creation means that you deny in reality what you maintain in words.

Originally Posted by Dr. Bob Gonzales

Second, I affirm God's absolute sovereignty. He is the ultimate cause behind every event including his own emotive responses within the matrix of human history. In that sense, He is not passive or passible.

It is clear that you allow God to be the Administrator, but a Sovereign is one for Whom everything exists. Your theory creates a God who makes Himself unhappy because of the things He permits to happen.

Originally Posted by Dr. Bob Gonzales

Third, I affirm that God's essential nature and moral attributes are unchangeable. That is, "God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in his being, power, wisdom, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth." So God never grows more or less powerful, wise, holy, just, good, or trustworthy.

More sound, orthodox terminology, which cannot stand side by side with your belief in divine emotivity. This is clear from your insistence that biblical language representing God as repenting must be taken literally. A God Who feels in conflict with His own purpose is mutable.

Originally Posted by Dr. Bob Gonzales

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

You keep claiming this, but your method of establishing divine emotivity is to argue from what is true of humans to what is true of God. It is at this point that your pantheism betrays itself, because it presupposes God is related to and acts towards the creation in the same way that humans do.

Originally Posted by Dr. Bob Gonzales

Fifth, I agree with Benjamin Warfield's perspective on divine emotivity:

And what is the underlying principle this perspective rejects?

incapable of being moved by inducement from without

Clearly Dr. Warfield was not being consistent with his reformed theology when he made this rhetorical flourish. The plan of salvation, from beginning to end, was according to the good purpose of God's will. Nothing could be more inconsistent with this basic principle of the reformed faith than to maintain that Christ was induced to become man by seeing the pitiful condition of lost men. The Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 8, sections 1 and 2, surely places the subject in its supreme biblical light, when it speaks of Christ being the Mediator in God's eternal purpose and assuming human nature in the fulness of time to redeem that people which was given to Him from all eternity. This was all executed according to God's determinate counsel, not because of any external inducement.

Originally Posted by Thomas2007

Some of us, me in particular, aren't as well read in regards to these categories of theological thought. Can you explain a little more how your view differs from Dr. Gonzales, in particular how his conclusions are "nothing more than rejections of the traditional understanding of anthropomorphism."

Dear brother,

His articles state that the reformed tradition was wrong to explain the biblical description of God repenting and such like things as representing God speaking after the manner of men, but demands such language be taken to literally mean that God actually feels sadness over sin. If this method of interpretation is carried out consistently, then we will not only have a human picture of God, and all distinction between Him and the creation eradicated, but it will even be a very poor picture of human life, because the Bible depicts God as learning, forgetting, remembering, feeling the pain of defeat, frustration, laughing at stupidity, etc., etc. Such language is understandable from the viewpoint that God has humbled Himself to act in accord with the terms of His covenant with man, but it is the height of folly to apply it to the actual Being of God as if He can literally be described and circumscribed by such passions.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by Dr. Bob Gonzales

I could accuse you of espousing and promoting Greek philosophical thought instead of biblical theology. But I won't.

But you do; your articles make this precise claim:

one may find analogous reasoning among some Greek philosophers.

You make this claim but then take offence at seeing the heathen origins of your own thinking exposed.



If God is self-sufficient and independent then His blessedness in no sense depends upon or is affected by the creation He has made. The fact that your teaching on divine emotivity makes His blessedness to depend upon and be affected by the creation means that you deny in reality what you maintain in words.



It is clear that you allow God to be the Administrator, but a Sovereign is one for Whom everything exists. Your theory creates a God who makes Himself unhappy because of the things He permits to happen.



More sound, orthodox terminology, which cannot stand side by side with your belief in divine emotivity. This is clear from your insistence that biblical language representing God as repenting must be taken literally. A God Who feels in conflict with His own purpose is mutable.



You keep claiming this, but your method of establishing divine emotivity is to argue from what is true of humans to what is true of God. It is at this point that your pantheism betrays itself, because it presupposes God is related to and acts towards the creation in the same way that humans do.

Originally Posted by Dr. Bob Gonzales

Fifth, I agree with Benjamin Warfield's perspective on divine emotivity:

And what is the underlying principle this perspective rejects?

incapable of being moved by inducement from without

Clearly Dr. Warfield was not being consistent with his reformed theology when he made this rhetorical flourish. The plan of salvation, from beginning to end, was according to the good purpose of God's will. Nothing could be more inconsistent with this basic principle of the reformed faith than to maintain that Christ was induced to become man by seeing the pitiful condition of lost men. The Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 8, sections 1 and 2, surely places the subject in its supreme biblical light, when it speaks of Christ being the Mediator in God's eternal purpose and assuming human nature in the fulness of time to redeem that people which was given to Him from all eternity. This was all executed according to God's determinate counsel, not because of any external inducement.

Brother Matthew,

You say things in a few short paragraphs what takes me a term paper for a class. May the Lord continue to bless you and increase your tribe.

Thank you.

Rev. Winzer,

My question is how should we understand the passages that say that God grieves and the passage that we are not to grieve the Holy Ghost? Maybe if we define how to understand these then we can move on.

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

My question is how should we understand the passages that say that God grieves and the passage that we are not to grieve the Holy Ghost? Maybe if we define how to understand these then we can move on.

That God grieves must be understood as a part of the same series of events which speaks of God calling out to Adam and asking him where he is and what he has done; of coming to Cain and asking him where his brother is; of observing the wickedness of man on earth; of smelling the sweet savour of Noah's sacrifice; of remembering His covenant; of coming down to see what the people of Babel were doing, etc. It is a highly dramatised way of showing God as taking part in the history being told as one of the characters in it, but it in no sense requires a literal understanding as if it describes the way God is and acts.

Grieving the Holy Spirit must be understood in the context of the passage which refers to maintaining the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. The grief is the pain caused to others members of the body of Christ and to the body as a whole. Any application made to the Person of the Holy Spirit Himself must be conscious of the divine-human distinction.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

My question is how should we understand the passages that say that God grieves and the passage that we are not to grieve the Holy Ghost? Maybe if we define how to understand these then we can move on.

That God grieves must be understood as a part of the same series of events which speaks of God calling out to Adam and asking him where he is and what he has done; of coming to Cain and asking him where his brother is; of observing the wickedness of man on earth; of smelling the sweet savour of Noah's sacrifice; of remembering His covenant; of coming down to see what the people of Babel were doing, etc. It is a highly dramatised way of showing God as taking part in the history being told as one of the characters in it, but it in no sense requires a literal understanding as if it describes the way God is and acts.

Grieving the Holy Spirit must be understood in the context of the passage which refers to maintaining the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. The grief is the pain caused to others members of the body of Christ and to the body as a whole. Any application made to the Person of the Holy Spirit Himself must be conscious of the divine-human distinction.

Just to prod you on a bit more here... please excuse my questioning as it may be pushing for something. Did St. Paul actually hear words that came from Christ when he was struck down. I mention this because of your implication that God's calling out to Adam in the Garden may not be a literal understanding. BTW, I understand that God doesn't need to come down and look. He is omnipresent. But yet this language is used to show God's transcendence and mercy in coming down to man.

Another question... at the same time in relation to the grieving and hating of sin, can it be possible that God is not moved by these emotions as we are but that he does have them? I know you kinda explained it to us a bit above. But can you share in my simple language how God does relate to us in wrath and or blessing without being emotionally involved but yet having his emotional state identified in the scriptures. Why would he do this if this wasn't true?

BTW, I am not trying to defend Dr. Gonzales. And I am not as up on this topic as you and others are. I find it objectionable that God has emotions as man does or that man has them as God does. And that is the crux of this line of questioning. I don't believe this to be true at all. I understand this because of my understanding of the transcendence of God while also knowing of his immanence, also because of the relationship between incomprehensibility and knowability. God is not as we are. And while we may be image bearers we are not as God is.

So, Reverend Winzer, as someone who has read the posts but not taken part in the discussion, would it be fair to say - as some I know are saying - that your take on what constitutes consistent or historic or biblically faithful Reformed theology is that God is essentially an impersonal "personal" being? And that your understanding of WCF 2.1 -particularly the language about God being without passions and being immutable - requires us to think of God in a way that thinks of him as being more akin to a computer running a program than as a Someone? Further, just so that I can understand, you seem to be arguing - though I could be wrong and so I want you to clarify - that the athropormorphic language of Scripture (about God loving, grieving, hating, etc) is really there for our amusement because the scriptural reference doesn't actually refer to any real "thing" about God, even though it says it does? I understand the concept that language about God is somewhat analogous and that it is anthropormorhic, but to say that "God grieves" or "God loves" or "God hates" really means nothing real about God sort of seems to this poor paratrooper to seem like Scripture is lying.
Please help me out so I can understand what you're saying about my God and my Scriptures, because as of right now, if I had to accept the testimony of BB Warfield or Matthew Winzer... well...

Very good questions, Randy.

No doubt Paul did hear the words of Christ and Adam did hear the voice of God. What this must have sounded like or how it was accomplished will probably remain a mystery until we hear it for ourselves in heaven. You have explained God's "coming down" in terms of His omnipresence, and that is the key to understanding the language properly. I think many modern theologians are trying to see this language as "another side" of God, whereas you have correctly seen it as consistent with the traditional understanding of Godhood.

On the subject of wrath and blessing, it should be at this point that we see the covenantal language of Scripture at its clearest. Given the express sanctions of the covenant in terms of blessing and curse, the language of wrath and pleasure is best conceived in the context of God acting His part in the temporal administration of the covenant. There is no need to understand such language as describing internal motions within God Himself.

Originally Posted by SolaScriptura

sort of seems to this poor paratrooper to seem like Scripture is lying.

Given that your questions take the high moral ground it is clear that you don't think of yourself merely as a poor paratrooper, and that there must be a great deal of theological reasoning underlying your understanding of the Scripture in order to derive the feeling that I am trying to make Scripture say something other than what it says. When you present yourself honestly and sincerely, in accord with what you really believe, I will undertake to answer your questions.

A couple of questions from another observer trying to understand:

Dr. Gonzales,

Are you affirming that God is conditioned in his eternal nature or will by that which he has created?

Rev. Winzer,
Would you identify love as an emotion? Joy? Wrath? Sorrow? Pleasure? Jealousy? Peace?
If there are differences, how would you describe them (particularly in reference to God)?


Thank you.

Originally Posted by Dearly Bought

Would you identify love as an emotion? Joy? Wrath? Sorrow? Pleasure? Jealousy? Peace?
If there are differences, how would you describe them (particularly in reference to God)?

One of the reasons I like those old versions which contain words like "charity" is because they bring out the volitional quality of the virtue of love rather than leave the impression that it is "responsive." If there is anything that Jesus taught His disciples about the true nature of love it is that it acts rather than reacts. Let a man do to you whatever he pleases, love continues to act according to its own convinced principles.

Joy is something we are commanded to do, not something which we feel when the mood is right.

Wrath is the choice to oppose and destroy that which is contrary to the principles of justice.

Pleasure is a state of being which results when a person has rationally evaluated what is good and actively pursues it.

Jealousy is also an act of the will, which refers to God's readiness to avenge His honour when those who have bound themselves to Him give themselves to another.

Peace is the state of being reconciled with another.

All these traits can be understood volitionally or emotively. It is the interpreter who reads emotive language into them.

I just want to thank Reverend Winzer and Dr Gonzalez for giving me much to consider. Your insights are extraordinarily valueable to me. I can add nothing intelligent to the argument but know I do intend to dig deeper into it.

Blessings

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by SolaScriptura

sort of seems to this poor paratrooper to seem like Scripture is lying.

Given that your questions take the high moral ground it is clear that you don't think of yourself merely as a poor paratrooper, and that there must be a great deal of theological reasoning underlying your understanding of the Scripture in order to derive the feeling that I am trying to make Scripture say something other than what it says. When you present yourself honestly and sincerely, in accord with what you really believe, I will undertake to answer your questions.

So... you take my descriptor (I was being silly... trying to imply that perhaps I'd bumped my head one too many times...) and you essentially call me a liar.

Nice dodge.

Originally Posted by SolaScriptura

So... you take my descriptor (I was being silly... trying to imply that perhaps I'd bumped my head one too many times...) and you essentially call me a liar.

Nice dodge.

There's no accusing and no dodging; I'm more than willing to answer your questions once your well-studied theological conviction has been brought out into the open rather than disguised under the working-class man's every day concerns. It doesn't take a genius to see that your "descriptor" was a clever way of disguising your view that I am denying the obvious. I only ask that you present your case with reason rather than instinct.

I find the Westminster Confession's doctrine of God to be very personal, but it is only because I accept its basic starting point that all relations between God and men are possible because of a "voluntary condescension" on God's part. Any temporal relation which does not start at this point is not merely "personal," but "interpersonal." For God to personally be involved in His creation only requires that His creation is blessed in Him; but for God to be interpersonally involved in His creation entails that God Himself is blessed by it. To deny interpersonal relationship does not equate to maintaining impersonal relationship.

"pantheistic views?" haha ... wow

Rev. Winzer,

With all due respect, I still have yet to see you defend your firmly convicted assertions of something that is quite speculative with any Scripture. Until that happens, I have to assume, along with Dr. Gonzalez, that you are importing some form of Greek philosophical thought into your responses of the nature of God, which if you want to get technical, is idolatry, IF true. The very fact of the matter is Scripture itself does use emotive language frequently (as cited by Dr. Gonzalez), even when speaking of those He destroys and damns. I'm not saying this is "proof" that God feels like we do. Just that it's there and must be dealt with. God Himself, in Christ, became man, like us in every way, the exact representation of His nature, tempted in every way, and yet without sin (Hebrews 2:17, 4:15). Jesus, the God-man, fully God, fully man, the second Person of the Trinity, in one Person, wept over Jerusalem and her hardness of heart (Luke 19:41), in essence, the reprobate. Hebrews 1:3 says, "He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature." And He wept. He was grieved. And it's not as if He was separate from the Father or the Holy Spirit in this. Remember, one God, three Persons. One Christ, fully man, fully God.

Then someone might say, "Well, that was Jesus as a man." And my response is, "And you would divide Him up into two separate beings?" I thought that issue was settled in the early church in a few major creeds? Just a few thoughts, and I could be wrong.

ok so wait... I have almost no clue whats being said
I liked Bens post #22 because that was exactly what I wanted to ask... but then you (armourbearer) didn't answer his question... so I'm stuck
so I will ask.
Are you saying that you believe that God does not have emotions?(anger, joy,love,sadness etc.)

Originally Posted by westerfunk

Rev. Winzer,

With all due respect, I still have yet to see you defend your firmly convicted assertions of something that is quite speculative with any Scripture.

Ummmm...

Have you read all of the posts? Including #20?

Well....it's a matter of perspective. Brother Winzer is emphasizing that God has always been, and always will be, alone sufficient and dependent upon nothing throughout all eternity......for, He is the Everlasting God, who alone is Independent of all created beings for all of time. He finds all of his needs met and has total and complete joy within Himself alone! And, he diminishes Himself not one degree of joy at all by the loss of one wicked soul, or by the scratch upon a single knee of one 90 year old woman. And so, the bottom line is.........he is not "responsive" to anything that life brings before him. He is 100% emotional to the extremity of his faculty of emotion, but only within the proper bounds of it's application within his glory.

Originally Posted by westerfunk

I still have yet to see you defend your firmly convicted assertions of something that is quite speculative with any Scripture.

My firmly convicted assertions are based on the understanding that God is what reformed theology claims Him to be. I would not have thought such an understanding required detailed exegesis to support it on this board, where the confessional position is assumed correct. If God is unchangeable, then He doesn't have changing feelings. He does not repent in terms of having an inward change of mind. If God is eternally blessed then He does not lack. If He did lack then we could not say, "The Lord is my Shepherd, I shall not want." Such a confession takes for granted that God possesses everything which can make a human blessed, and therefore cannot stand in need of any human to make Him blessed. If God is all powerful then He is not limited in terms of what He can do. If God is all wise then He is never at a loss to know what to do. Given this understanding, it is quite clear that any Scripture which speaks of God repenting or lacking ability, wisdom, glory, or blessedness, quite obviously is figurative language and ought not to be understood in a literal way.

Originally Posted by Honor

Are you saying that you believe that God does not have emotions?(anger, joy,love,sadness etc.)

What these words describe when used in reference to God are not emotions, but volitions. God worketh all things according to the counsel of His own will, Eph. 1:11.

Originally Posted by westerfunk

Then someone might say, "Well, that was Jesus as a man." And my response is, "And you would divide Him up into two separate beings?" I thought that issue was settled in the early church in a few major creeds? Just a few thoughts, and I could be wrong.

Yes, the early creeds settled that by saying that Jesus is fully God and fully man, two entire natures in one Person. What you describe as the emotion of Jesus was used to to prove that Jesus is fully man.

Originally Posted by westerfunk

Then someone might say, "Well, that was Jesus as a man." And my response is, "And you would divide Him up into two separate beings?" I thought that issue was settled in the early church in a few major creeds? Just a few thoughts, and I could be wrong.

Indeed, the early church did settle the issue.

We are not dividing the person of Christ into two separate beings: but the distinct natures are recognized, and not confused; and while the distinct attributes of each nature are said to be communicated to, or held by the common Person, they are not communicated to the separate natures. Thus, we can say that the Person of Christ died (in whom are two natures): dying, however, is an attribute of the human nature, and not the divine.

Thus, we can freely say that the person of Christ exhibited certain emotions; but this does not have to be (nor, would I say, should be or even can be) attributed to the divine nature.

For an exegetical case of this, see Calvin's comments on John 11:35, where an exhibition can be found of the relation of emotions to the person of Christ.

-----Added 2/18/2009 at 02:08:05 EST-----

Oops. Disregard my last post, and see Matthew Winzer's much more concise version in the previous post.

Originally Posted by Prufrock

For an exegetical case of this, see Calvin's comments on John 11:35, where an exhibition can be found of the relation of emotions to the person of Christ.

Paul, very good suggestion.

Originally Posted by KMK

Originally Posted by westerfunk

Rev. Winzer,

With all due respect, I still have yet to see you defend your firmly convicted assertions of something that is quite speculative with any Scripture.

Ummmm...

Have you read all of the posts? Including #20?

Thanks, that one slipped past me ...

-----Added 2/18/2009 at 09:37:42 EST-----

Paul and Matt,

Thank you for your comments.

The issues here are ramifications of the doctrine of impassibility. Here are a couple of quotes from J. I. Packer which I found helpful.

This means, not that God is impassive and unfeeling (a frequent misunderstanding), but that no created beings can inflict pain, suffering and distress on him at their own will. In so far as God enters into suffering and grief (which Scripture's many anthropopathisms, plus the fact of the cross, show that he does), it is by his own deliberate decision; he is never his creatures' hapless victim. The Christian mainstream has construed impassibility as meaning not that God is a stranger to joy and delight, but rather that his joy is permanent, clouded by no involuntary pain. [J. I. Packer, "God," in Sinclair Ferguson and David Wright, eds., New Dictionary of Theology (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1998), 277].

[Impassibility is] not impassivity, unconcern, and impersonal detachment in face of the creation; not insensitivity and indifference to the distresses of a fallen world; not inability or unwillingness to empathize with human pain and grief; but simply that God's experiences do not come upon him as ours come upon us, for his are foreknown, willed and chosen by himself, and are not involuntary surprises forced on him from outside, apart from his own decision, in the way that ours regularly are. [“Theism for Our Time," in Peter T. O'Brien and David G. Peterson, God Who Is Rich in Mercy (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986), 16].