God's sadness for the reprobate

[Honor]

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.)

 

[KMK]

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?

 

[moral necessity]

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.

 

[MW]

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.

 

[MW]

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.

 

[MW]

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.

 

[Prufrock]

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.

 

[MW]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

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].

 

[Neogillist]

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

What does God do?

God, the church and the angels all rejoice over the damnation of the wicked as is clearly taught in Revelation and as was expounded by Jonathan Edwards himself.

Revelation 18:19; And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate.

20Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her.

Although it would be inappropriate for us to rejoice in the damnation of the wicked right now, Jonathan Edwards points out that when Christ returns, we will be transformed with incorruptible bodies and we will be able to see all the wickedness of the reprobate just as God sees it and abhors it. We will no longer be required to love the wicked but will be commanded by God to hate them just as God hates them, and to rejoice forever in their eternal torments as God's glorious justice is finally revealed.

 

[tdowns]

Great read.

Thanks for the great read, really helps to grasp reformed doctrines when they are expressed as clearly as they are here.

Since God condescends to describe Himself in human emotional terms, for the Christian, who is not wrapping his or her mind around the theological constructs of the great minds of the church, would it be wrong, to relate to God, as He has presented himself?

Bottom line, if God says He mourns the wounds of His creation, then why not describe it that way to the wounded and leave it at that?

I'm not saying the discussion should not be had, it should be, and I love it, but, as we take it to the mainstream?

Another thought,

To me it seems, one side fears we make God a changing God, if we don't rightly explain the emotional terms He uses to describe himself.

The other, fears, explaining them away, we make God an impersonal God.

Just trying to wrap the concepts to fit this lay-person's mind.

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

God is outside of time and unchanging in his essence and decree. I think it is important to recognize that God's empathy with humankind (to whatever extent or degree) is an act of his will, consistent with his nature, and not a reaction to anything external to his triune self -- i.e. not an emotional "response" welling up in God as a result of our actions, circumstances, or difficulties.

This seems consistent with the Packer quotes I gave above and with Matthew Winzer's emphasis on God's empathy being volitional rather than emotional (in the sense we experience it).

God doesn't "will" based on his emotions, but wills his emotion (consistent with his nature). God has set his love on his elect in electing them, and he has determined that his own eternal bliss will enjoy the salvation of the elect and the eternal destruction of the reprobate. God has no misgivings, intrepidations, regrets, or unfulfilled desires. Nor, may I boldly assert, does he have one desire overiding another to effect his decree.

 

[tdowns]

I agree...

God is outside of time and unchanging in his essence and decree. I think it is important to recognize that God's empathy with humankind (to whatever extent or degree) is an act of his will, consistent with his nature, and not a reaction to anything external to his triune self -- i.e. not an emotional "response" welling up in God as a result of our actions, circumstances, or difficulties.

This seems consistent with the Packer quotes I gave above and with Matthew Winzer's emphasis on God's empathy being volitional rather than emotional (in the sense we experience it).

God doesn't "will" based on his emotions, but wills his emotion (consistent with his nature).

I agree, and the way I've been reading it, so would Dr. Gonzalez?

 

[a mere housewife]

Thanks for the great read, really helps to grasp reformed doctrines when they are expressed as clearly as they are here.

Since God condescends to describe Himself in human emotional terms, for the Christian, who is not wrapping his or her mind around the theological constructs of the great minds of the church, would it be wrong, to relate to God, as He has presented himself?

Bottom line, if God says He mourns the wounds of His creation, then why not describe it that way to the wounded and leave it at that?

I'm not saying the discussion should not be had, it should be, and I love it, but, as we take it to the mainstream?

Another thought,

To me it seems, one side fears we make God a changing God, if we don't rightly explain the emotional terms He uses to describe himself.

The other, fears, explaining them away, we make God an impersonal God.

Just trying to wrap the concepts to fit this lay-person's mind.

Trevor as another lay-person who has really appreciated the thread I too wonder if we can't speak in these terms as God does? I tend to think we can as long as we understand that it is a 'lisping' about Him and don't confuse the language as if it were absolute? -- don't come to shift in our minds or in other peoples' to whom we are speaking, an accommodated revelation of God for an image of our own, whose will is thwarted and feelings hurt and ultimately who is a victim of creation?

I also wanted to say that for my part, as a housewife, there is great practical value in understanding this language as an accommodation: this thread has been a great joy to me. Before I understood all of this, a few years ago, one morning when I was basically feeling like I had been flogged to the end of my resources, Ruben was reading Scripture to me: I wasn't catching what he was saying I was so walled in with exhaustion -- just one phrase, which I don't even remember perfectly, about how God our maker doesn't fail. It suddenly hit me that though I was sick, unhappy, utterly at the end and the 'victim' of all these circumstances, floundering and failing, my God was not tired, not sick, not unhappy, not the victim of any circumstance, outside the possibility of failing -- he was beyond all these things, existing utterly, eternally blessed. I could almost hear the music of the spheres . I could do what needed to be done that day because beyond me, such a God is, was, and ever will be. I think that the joy of the Lord in that regard is some of the most potent strength a lay-person could know?

 

[tdowns]

Yes...

Great points, that's what we rest in.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Dr. Gonzales,

In post #3 of this thread you mention a number of Reformed scholars who affirm divine emotivity. In post #10 you quote Warfield on the subject.

In response to what you posited, your views were declared - not accused of being, but actually declared - to be pantheistic (of course that is nonsense because a pantheist sees God as an impersonal being - a force - if you will, because God is everything, and you clearly believe that God is a personal being). However, when you quote Warfield who uses much stronger rhetoric than yourself, the tone demured a bit and he was declared - again, not accused of being, but actually declared - to be inconsistent in his Reformed theology. Now, in my opinion, going from holding pagan beliefs to "merely" being inconsistent with one's Reformed thought is quite a jump. It may be helpful if you would offer citations from these Reformed scholars, because let's face it: on the credibility scale the likes of Warfield and Hodge carry more weight than Gonzales.
This certainly won't change the mind of some -or even many here, but for those who are not yet decided, it may be helpful to see that one can in fact be Reformed and NOT argue that God is, as you say, "comfortably numb."

I will say that I understand the impassiblity of God along the lines articulated by Packer in the quotes offered by Gomarus in post #40.

Not sure if it is relevant, but Grudem defines impassibility much as it has been defined in this thread by Rev. Winzer and others... and then rejects it as based more upon pagan philosophy than Scripture. I don't think that his rejection of the impassibility of God would have been necessary if he would define it in terms akin to those by Packer and Warfield.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Wayne Grudem writes in Systematic Theology, 2000, Zondervan, pg. 196:

“c. The Question of God’s Impassibility: Sometimes in a discussion of God’s attributes theologians have spoken of another attribute, namely, the impassibility of God. This attribute, if true, would mean that God does not have passions or emotions, but is “impassible,” not subject to passions. In fact, chapter 2 of the Westminster Confession of Faith says that God is “without . . . passions.” This statement goes beyond what we have affirmed in our definition above about God’s unchangeableness, and affirms more than that God does not change in his being, perfections, purposes, or promises— it also affirms that God does not even feel emotions or “passions.” The Scripture proof given by the Westminster Confession of Faith is Acts 14:15, which in the King James Version reports Barnabas and Paul as rejecting worship from the people at Lystra, protesting that they are not gods but “men of like passions with you.” The implication of the KJV translation might be that someone who is truly God would not have “like passions” as men do, or it might simply show that the apostles were responding to the false view of passionless gods assumed by the men of Lystra (see vv. 10–11). But if the verse is rightly translated, it certainly does not prove that God has no passions or emotions at all, for the Greek term here (homoiopathe) can simply mean having similar circumstances or experiences, or being of a similar nature to someone else. Of course, God does not have sinful passions or emotions. But the idea that God has no passions or emotions at all clearly conflicts with much of the rest of Scripture, and for that reason I have not affirmed God’s impassibility in this book. Instead, quite the opposite is true, for God, who is the origin of our emotions and who created our emotions, certainly does feel emotions: God rejoices (Isa. 62:5). He is grieved (Ps. 78:40; Eph. 4:30). His wrath burns hot against his enemies (Ex. 32:10). He pities his children (Ps. 103:13). He loves with everlasting love (Isa. 54:8; Ps. 103:17). He is a God whose passions we are to imitate for all eternity as we like our Creator hate sin and delight in righteousness.”​

I think Grudem does not go far enough in describing exactly how God's "emotions" are distinguished from our own. As such he leaves too much on the table to be easily misunderstood.

 

[sotzo]

Doesn't this whole issue clear up when we agree to say that God has willed himself to be emotive and that since his will is not contingent on anything he has created, he can be emotive without it being derived outside of himself?

On the matter of Dr. Gonzalez being pantheistic, I don't see the connection and think such inferences are tantamount to telling our Baptist brothers that "you obviously think infants go to hell since you don't believe they can be saved apart from their own decision to accept Christ". Alot of this board's worth is indeed bound to our commitment to stay within confessional standards...but, surely the board's worth is also bound to taking our brothers at face alue when they say they adhere to those standards...and to reserve charges of heresy for clear instances in which those confessional standards have been breached.

 

[CDM]

Wayne Grudem writes in Systematic Theology, 2000, Zondervan, pg. 196:

“c. The Question of God’s Impassibility: Sometimes in a discussion of God’s attributes theologians have spoken of another attribute, namely, the impassibility of God. This attribute, if true, would mean that God does not have passions or emotions, but is “impassible,” not subject to passions. In fact, chapter 2 of the Westminster Confession of Faith says that God is “without . . . passions.” This statement goes beyond what we have affirmed in our definition above about God’s unchangeableness, and affirms more than that God does not change in his being, perfections, purposes, or promises— it also affirms that God does not even feel emotions or “passions.” The Scripture proof given by the Westminster Confession of Faith is Acts 14:15, which in the King James Version reports Barnabas and Paul as rejecting worship from the people at Lystra, protesting that they are not gods but “men of like passions with you.” The implication of the KJV translation might be that someone who is truly God would not have “like passions” as men do, or it might simply show that the apostles were responding to the false view of passionless gods assumed by the men of Lystra (see vv. 10–11). But if the verse is rightly translated, it certainly does not prove that God has no passions or emotions at all, for the Greek term here (homoiopathe) can simply mean having similar circumstances or experiences, or being of a similar nature to someone else. Of course, God does not have sinful passions or emotions. But the idea that God has no passions or emotions at all clearly conflicts with much of the rest of Scripture, and for that reason I have not affirmed God’s impassibility in this book. Instead, quite the opposite is true, for God, who is the origin of our emotions and who created our emotions, certainly does feel emotions: God rejoices (Isa. 62:5). He is grieved (Ps. 78:40; Eph. 4:30). His wrath burns hot against his enemies (Ex. 32:10). He pities his children (Ps. 103:13). He loves with everlasting love (Isa. 54:8; Ps. 103:17). He is a God whose passions we are to imitate for all eternity as we like our Creator hate sin and delight in righteousness.”​

I think Grudem does not go far enough in describing exactly how God's "emotions" are distinguished from our own. As such he leaves too much on the table to be easily misunderstood.

Far enough? It doesn't appear that he even touched the matter. If this is all Grudem wrote on the subject this is at best a disappointment. He just simply asserted his opinion. At least Dr. Gonzalez has sought to interact with the classic reformed view as described by by Rev. Winzer.

 

[a mere housewife]

(Along the lines of what Patrick posted: A question about the previous quotes: they seem to say, "yes the Creator feels these 'emotions' as His creations do, He just inflicts them on Himself" rather than saying "The language of emotions itself is an accommodation to our created nature?" Surely the plane on which God 'enters into' human sufferings is not the same plane in which we enter into them, regardless of self-will [doesn't fully actualised self-will, and not having a body, preclude the possibility of emotions like ours?] -- thus Calvin speaks of Him lisping as a nurse with little children in physical and emotional language with us?)

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

. . . I think Grudem does not go far enough in describing exactly how God's "emotions" are distinguished from our own. As such he leaves too much on the table to be easily misunderstood.

Far enough? It doesn't appear that he even touched the matter. If this is all Grudem wrote on the subject this is at best a disappointment. He just simply asserted his opinion. At least Dr. Gonzalez has sought to interact with the classic reformed view as described by by Rev. Winzer.

In my humble opinion, Grudem is theologically disappointing in a number of areas. I agree this is certainly one.

 

[he beholds]

Doesn't this whole issue clear up when we agree to say that God has willed himself to be emotive and that since his will is not contingent on anything he has created, he can be emotive without it being derived outside of himself?

On the matter of Dr. Gonzalez being pantheistic, I don't see the connection and think such inferences are tantamount to telling our Baptist brothers that "you obviously think infants go to hell since you don't believe they can be saved apart from their own decision to accept Christ". Alot of this board's worth is indeed bound to our commitment to stay within confessional standards...but, surely the board's worth is also bound to taking our brothers at face alue when they say they adhere to those standards...and to reserve charges of heresy for clear instances in which those confessional standards have been breached.

Thank you↑↑↑

When opening this thread, I expected a discussion considering whether God is sad specifically for reprobates. I never imagined that it would be about whether God feels anything at all. I have never considered that idea and have always assumed that God does have emotions.

My interest has been piqued. However, and no offense is intended, the side that is standing up for an un-feeling God is itself showing to be un-feeling! If I were very new to the faith and were using my own emotions as a guide, I would immediately choose the other side, for Dr. Gonzales and the others were being kind and helpful in their posts, whereas some on the other side were being quite hostile. The arrogance and hostility alone would have turned me off from even considering that viewpoint.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I know this stuff is very weighty and doesn't lend itself to easy understanding but let me clear up something that might have been confused by some of the interchange.

There seems to be a misunderstanding involved here that, for God to be immanent or involved in His creation He has to be "emotional". That is to say, that if God doesn't have an analagous response of emotions to historical events then He is uninvolved in His creation and we have to assume a pagan transcendance where God is static and immovable.

I think this is a false dilemna. I find a more satisfactory explanation in God's activity with man in this from Rev. Winzer above:

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.

In other words, activity is not being denied nor is God's interest and immanence with the Creation denied but what is challenged is that wrath, love, justice, etc are analagous to human emotions.

Circumstances affect human emotions. Events and reports of things evoke feelings and reactions from us.

When we're reading antrhopathetic descriptions of God's interactions with men, I think what is being argued is that it is a mistake to assume that God's activity is to be understood in emotionally reactive ways.

I understand that the term "pantheistic" is provocative in one sense but to assert that God reacts emotively is to describe God so immanently that He becomes part of His creation and dependent upon it for His emotional state. One can more properly protect God's transcendence and immanence as Creator and do full justice to both without defining His immanence in the way suggested.

In fact, I think a good starting point to discuss what wrath, love, joy, peace, etc really are is to discuss whether what we are called to in these things ourselves is emotional or is it activity? If one simply accepts that these are, essentially, emotions, then how is one able to love when they have no emotions of love or to be joyful always when tragedy strikes. One need not even look further than the nature of human activity and response to learn something about the true nature of these fruits. If we're not called merely to be emotional in our love and joy then why is God better off being emotional? Don't we understand, even by the light of nature, that it is the undisciplined and unstable that act according to emotion?

 

[Iconoclast]

I like this quote from JL Dagg

In our study of God's attributes, it is important to remember, at every step of our progress, that they are all incomprehensible to us. We should do this, not only for the sake of humility, but to guard us against erroneous inferences, which we are liable to draw from our imperfect conceptions of the divine nature. It is instructive to notice how far the elements of these conceptions are derived from what we know of our own minds. No combination of such elements can possibly give us adequate conceptions of the eternal and infinite Mind. Even the Holy Scriptures, which reveal God to us, do not supply the elementary conceptions necessary to a perfect knowledge of God. They speak to human beings in human language, and the knowledge which they impart is sufficient for our present necessities, and able to make us wise to salvation; but we should remember, that human language cannot express to us what the human mind cannot conceive, and, therefore, cannot convey a full knowledge of the deity.

here is another

But why should we indulge ourselves in vain speculations, or exhaust ourselves with needless efforts? We are like children who wade into the ocean, to learn its depth by the measure of their little stature, and who exclaim, almost at their first step, O! how deep! Even Paul, when laboring to fathom this subject exclaimed, "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!"[46]

these quotes came from here,Founders Ministries | DAGG BK. 2 CHAPTER II

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Doesn't this whole issue clear up when we agree to say that God has willed himself to be emotive and that since his will is not contingent on anything he has created, he can be emotive without it being derived outside of himself?

On the matter of Dr. Gonzalez being pantheistic, I don't see the connection and think such inferences are tantamount to telling our Baptist brothers that "you obviously think infants go to hell since you don't believe they can be saved apart from their own decision to accept Christ". Alot of this board's worth is indeed bound to our commitment to stay within confessional standards...but, surely the board's worth is also bound to taking our brothers at face alue when they say they adhere to those standards...and to reserve charges of heresy for clear instances in which those confessional standards have been breached.

Thank you↑↑↑

When opening this thread, I expected a discussion considering whether God is sad specifically for reprobates. I never imagined that it would be about whether God feels anything at all. I have never considered that idea and have always assumed that God does have emotions.

My interest has been piqued. However, and no offense is intended, the side that is standing up for an un-feeling God is itself showing to be un-feeling! If I were very new to the faith and were using my own emotions as a guide, I would immediately choose the other side, for Dr. Gonzales and the others were being kind and helpful in their posts, whereas some on the other side were being quite hostile. The arrogance and hostility alone would have turned me off from even considering that viewpoint.

Jessi,

I understand this. You sort of confirm my great concern that this kind of presentation is not helpful in this forum. The controversy erupted in another thread because the idea is that the majority position on the impassiblity of God in orthodox Christianity presents a God who is "comfortably numb" and that this is inadquate. Well, who wants a God who is comfortably numb? I want a God who cares about me.

In other words, the title and presentation sort of poisons the well from the beginning. It might not have been intended but the title itself provokes the notion that orthodoxy has placed God in a transcendent stasis where he can't break into His own creation unless He has emotions analagous to our own.

I know Rev. Winzer and his concerns are pastoral. He's not a touchy-feely guy in his presentation but I know what his heart is in the matter because I think he views the presentation as potentially perilous for the onlooker.

It goes to my point in my last post, then, about the nature of reaction to things. That is to say that, in matters of Truth, perceived "mean-ness" actually affects men/women in their apprehension of Truth. I believe this more because this guy is more winsome than the other. Surely we have to all agree that God does not judge according to such an unstable standard.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I understand that the term "pantheistic" is provocative in one sense but to assert that God reacts emotively is to describe God so immanently that He becomes part of His creation and dependent upon it for His emotional state. One can more properly protect God's transcendence and immanence as Creator and do full justice to both without defining His immanence in the way suggested.

In fact, I think a good starting point to discuss what wrath, love, joy, peace, etc really are is to discuss whether what we are called to in these things ourselves is emotional or is it activity? If one simply accepts that these are, essentially, emotions, then how is one able to love when they have no emotions of love or to be joyful always when tragedy strikes. One need not even look further than the nature of human activity and response to learn something about the true nature of these fruits. If we're not called merely to be emotional in our love and joy then why is God better off being emotional? Don't we understand, even by the light of nature, that it is the undisciplined and unstable that act according to emotion?

Thanks for helping us out in understanding this Rich. I know Rev. Winzer doesn't just throw terminology around. There was a reason for it.

Pantheism
2. any religious belief or philosophical doctrine that identifies God with the universe.

 

[he beholds]

Jessi,

I understand this. You sort of confirm my great concern that this kind of presentation is not helpful in this forum. The controversy erupted in another thread because the idea is that the majority position on the impassiblity of God in orthodox Christianity presents a God who is "comfortably numb" and that this is inadquate. Well, who wants a God who is comfortably numb? I want a God who cares about me.

In other words, the title and presentation sort of poisons the well from the beginning. It might not have been intended but the title itself provokes the notion that orthodoxy has placed God in a transcendent stasis where he can't break into His own creation unless He has emotions analagous to our own.

I know Rev. Winzer and his concerns are pastoral. He's not a touchy-feely guy in his presentation but I know what his heart is in the matter because I think he views the presentation as potentially perilous for the onlooker.

It goes to my point in my last post, then, about the nature of reaction to things. That is to say that, in matters of Truth, perceived "mean-ness" actually affects men/women in their apprehension of Truth. I believe this more because this guy is more winsome than the other. Surely we have to all agree that God does not judge according to such an unstable standard.

Thanks, Rich! And I do agree that the perceived mean-ness should not influence our theology and that God will not judge our understanding based on what attracted us to it. I think I was just surprised at how cold it was in here.*Brrr*

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Let me make one other comment with respect to Dr. Bob. He is one of the most humble and decent people I've run across on this board. He takes it on the chin very well and with a tremendous amount of grace. We've interacted in PM and in other channels and the man exudes Christian maturity and character. Whatever concerns I have about him are not in his love for God or desire to honor Him. I don't want people to think that my criticism descend to the man himself. It is readily apparent to me that he is much better studied on many things than I and his willingness to interact in a conciliatory and respectful way to my concerns, as rough as they are at times, ought to serve as an example to all. He truly is an Israelite without guile.

 

[py3ak]

We discussed the question of divine impassibility previously as well.

If this is taken up, perhaps we ought to do a spin-off thread about the place of philosophy and theology, but I wanted to reply to what I think is a red herring: "you're getting that view (of God's impassibility) from Greek philosophy." If that means anything, it means that we ought to be ashamed that as Reformed believers, having the advantages of the Confessions and the writing of our predecessors, and principally of a completed special revelation, we are struggling to maintain an aspect of natural religion which some of Plato's disciples saw clearly.

Here is Augustine, The City of God, Book VIII, Chapter 6

These philosophers, then, whom we see not undeservedly exalted above the rest in fame and glory, have seen that no material body is God, and therefore they have transcended all bodies in seeking for God. They have seen that whatever is changeable is not the most high God, and therefore they have transcended every soul and all changeable spirits in seeking the supreme. They have seen also that, in every changeable thing, the form which makes it that which it is, whatever be its mode or nature, can only be through Him who truly is, because He is unchangeable. And therefore, whether we consider the whole body of the world, its figure, qualities, and orderly movement, and also all the bodies which are in it; or whether we consider all life, either that which nourishes and maintains, as the life of trees, or that which, besides this, has also sensation, as the life of beasts; or that which adds to all these intelligence, as the life of man; or that which does not need the support of nutriment, but only maintains, feels, understands, as the life of angels,—all can only be through Him who absolutely is. For to Him it is not one thing to be, and another to live, as though He could be, not living; nor is it to Him one thing to live, and another thing to understand, as though He could live, not understanding; nor is it to Him one thing to understand, another thing to be blessed, as though He could understand and not be blessed. But to Him to live, to understand, to be blessed, are to be. They have understood, from this unchangeableness and this simplicity, that all things must have been made by Him, and that He could Himself have been made by none.