Is God Always Happy or Joyful?

[OPC'n]

Many times what you said is correct but this subject. To incorrectly think God has anger (or any emption) in Himself is touching on a doctrine we ought to study and embrace as Christians correctly. I understand this is a touchy subject for both sides, and in my opinion is one that ought to be discussed with passion and understanding. I hope some of out Pastors here will chime in, for I know many Pastors will not even address this subject because of the emotions involved.

This discussion is all part of the of the dual natures of Jesus and ought to be contemplated deeply and with great humility. For I know at one time I mixed the natures of Jesus on this subject, and greatly regret such.

I wasn’t speaking to the dual natures of Jesus. I was only speaking to your question on whether or not God had wrath before creation. I don’t find this to be a touchy subject. I think as long as people support their statements with Scripture we can learn from each other. I’m still interested in how you get from God having no wrath to having wrath and yet holding to his immutability at the same time. I promise to be civil

 

[earl40]

I wasn’t speaking to the dual natures of Jesus. I was only speaking to your question on whether or not God had wrath before creation. I don’t find this to be a touchy subject. I think as long as people support their statements with Scripture we can learn from each other. I’m still interested in how you get from God having no wrath to having wrath and yet holding to his immutability at the same time. I promise to be civil

So far as God netting out justice it is without any thought of anger, for if He did “who could stand”? Now so far as God being wrathful or angry before creation there was no creation before He created and these emotions are not properly ascribed to God’s attributes or nature. I understate your stance about God knowing what will transpire in the future but the fact is one should not predicate the future with the essential nature of The Divine. This would have God a contingent being based on that future. Also this conversation does revole around the human and divine nature of Jesus, in that as Acts says there is no passion in God. I understand the reluctance to to think in this way for many leanered men such as Professor Frame and Oliphant have erred greatly here along with all those who were taught by these men.

 

[Grant]

I am not sure we should say that the "Wrath" of God is an attribute (proper), but rather an action, necessary against ALL sin and unrighteousness, flowing from the attribute of "Justice" which is eternal.

P.S. This is really a new can of worms that gets far away from the OP, in my opinion

P.P.S. This is difficult because questions are being raised in time "before creation". Well God is outside of time, so that makes it even more difficult. That is why the above comment I gave makes the most sense to my finite brain.

 

[earl40]

I’m not saying this subject is unimportant. But there is a difference between affirming and cherishing necessary doctrines in an orthodox manner while still struggling with how those truths exactly flesh out or how they “work.” But we still have to remember that God is incomprehensible, and his ways are not ours. I only said what I said on this subject, first, because of the very nature of the subject, and second, because there have already been in this thread implicit accusations of brothers and sisters worshipping other gods, all over such a difficult—and likely truly incomprehensible—subject for finite minds to begin with.

I’ve seen this with discussions surrounding the Trinity. I have seen orthodox, Nicene trinitarians accused of heresy simply because they failed to give an explanation or analogy of how the Trinity “works” that satisfied the other party, despite the fact that both affirmed Nicea and Chalcedon. That’s when these discussions go too far. The creeds and confessions have wisdom in that they state the doctrine without trying to flesh it out. Sometimes that’s all we should do. God is unchangeable, impassible, eternal. Full stop. Go no further. Calvin has this wisdom, as well.

Others may disagree, of course, and everyone is free to have heir opinion, but this is mine.

We may not know God as He is in Himself but we can know what God is not and this includes Him being angry or having emotions.

 

[OPC'n]

So far as God netting out justice it is without any thought of anger, for if He did “who could stand”? Now so far as God being wrathful or angry before creation there was no creation before He created and these emotions are not properly ascribed to God’s attributes or nature. I understate your stance about God knowing what will transpire in the future but the fact is one should not predicate the future with the essential nature of The Divine. This would have God a contingent being based on that future. Also this conversation does revole around the human and divine nature of Jesus, in that as Acts says there is no passion in God. I understand the reluctance to to think in this way for many leanered men such as Professor Frame and Oliphant have erred greatly here along with all those who were taught by these men.

Perhaps you could explain what you mean by "emotions". If you mean God isn't emotional, then I would have to agree. If you mean God is void of love, joy, peace, anger, wrath etc. and these characteristics are not the essence of who he is, then I would have to disagree. I don't believe you can compare our emotions to that of God's. Ours are changeable. I could be angry one moment then happy the next moment depending on the circumstances surrounding me. So if I'm of a weak character my surroundings control my emotions. If I'm of a strong character, I don't allow my circumstances to control my emotions but allow appropriate reactions to situations. In either case, my emotions are changeable.

When speaking about God he is in control of all things, and therefore, circumstances do not control his emotions (perhaps this is a bad choice of words but I'm using it because you keep using it. I prefer to use "his characteristics"). His love for us doesn't wax and wane based on our love for him waxing and waning. He is love and he gives us that love in a constant and fixed manner. Him being love is far above our love. The love we have is something we feel not something we are. God's love is who he is there is not one part of him that isn't love and the same for all his characteristics. His wrath against sin shouldn't be viewed as something that is ungodly. His wrath is righteous and well deserved by mankind, but you know this I'm sure. God doesn't become wrathful when a person sins. He is wrath. His wrath is constant and unchanging in quality and quantity. He turns his wrath upon some people and turns his wrath away from some people as he chooses. This isn't a sign of waxing and waning emotion or of becoming wrathful or becoming non-wrathful (pretty sure that's not a word lol).

I think what trips up the thinking process is using the word "emotion" instead of using "his characteristics". We also cannot think of his characteristics in terms of human experience. God doesn't experience anything. To experience something is to change from one situation to another. God doesn't change. We experience happiness, love, joy etc. God is just those things.

 

[Filter]

I know John Frame isn't highly regarded here by some, but I appreciate him deeply. He has a section in one book about how impassiblity does not negate a clear biblical presentation of a God who can be grieved.

I like John Frame, though he does make the mistake (I believe) of defining impassibility as the "denial of God as having emotions or feelings, and that He suffers" in his Doctrine of God: The Theology of Lordship (2002). Impassibility was classically defined as only related to whether or not God suffers (from the latin passio - 'to suffer', or 'be afflicted'), and that is how many early church fathers (Irenaeus, Origen, Augustine, Theodoret, Anselm, etc.) used it (i.e. Origen certainly affirmed the anger of God in his First Principles). Acts 1:3 is a good example of seeing passio in the Vulgate. The evolution of the term took place around the 14th century and came to mean 'emotions' in general, and that is reflected in the writings of Calvin, Luther, and modern theologians.

I do, however, respect Frame's insight later in his book when he writes that "what precise feelings He [God] experiences we do not know, and we would be wise not to speculate". I would agree that strict dogmatism has no place here.

 

[earl40]

I like John Frame, though he does make the mistake (I believe) of defining impassibility as the "denial of God as having emotions or feelings, and that He suffers" in his Doctrine of God: The Theology of Lordship (2002). Impassibility was classically defined as only related to whether or not God suffers (from the latin passio - 'to suffer', or 'be afflicted'), and that is how many early church fathers (Irenaeus, Origen, Augustine, Theodoret, Anselm, etc.) used it (i.e. Origen certainly affirmed the anger of God in his First Principles). Acts 1:3 is a good example of seeing passio in the Vulgate. The evolution of the term took place around the 14th century and came to mean 'emotions' in general, and that is reflected in the writings of Calvin, Luther, and modern theologians.

I do, however, respect Frame's insight later in his book when he writes that "what precise feelings He [God] experiences we do not know, and we would be wise not to speculate". I would agree that strict dogmatism has no place here.

Strict dogmatism I shall espouse now. God does not have emotions, or feeling in any way shape or form.

 

[earl40]

Calvin...."For because our weakness does not attain to his exalted state, the description of him that is given to us must be accommodated to our capacity so that we may understand it. Now the mode of accommodation is for him to represent himself to us not as he is in himself, but as he seems to us. Although he is beyond all disturbance of mind, yet he testifies that he is angry toward sinners. Therefore whenever we hear that God is angered, we ought not to imagine any emotion in him, but rather to consider that this expression has been taken from our own human experience; because God, whenever he is exercising judgment, exhibits the appearance of one kindled and angered. So we ought not to understand anything else under the word ‘repentance’ than change of action, because men are wont by changing their action to testify that they are displeased with themselves (emphasis added)."

 

[Filter]

Acts says there is no passion in God

Can I get a citation for this please?

 

[earl40]

Can I get a citation for this please?

Below you will see The Apostles, Barnabas and Paul saying they are no gods because they have passions like other men.

"11 And when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men.....14 Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,
15 And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein:"

 

[Taylor]

Below you will see The Apostles, Barnabas and Paul saying they are no gods because they have passions like other men.

"11 And when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men.....14 Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,
15 And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein:"

You are unnecessarily restricting the exegetical possibilities of this passage, brother. The Greek word used here is ὁμοιοπαθεῖς, which the KJV rightly translates as "like passions." You are reversing the English word order and making Paul say that he has "passions like" them, rather than "like (i.e., similar) passions" with them. The Greek says the latter, not the former, and there is a difference. Logically (and thus exegetically), we could conclude, as you have, that either that God has no passions, or that God has different passions ("hetero-" rather than "homoio-"). As I said, you are concluding definitively the former at the expense of the latter. The latter, in my opinion, is better exegetically, since the smoother opposite of "homoio-" is "hetero-."

(Disclosure: I affirm God's impassibility, so this is not an attempt to discredit the doctrine. I just have an interest in exegetical fidelity, even when the conclusion of any one particular instance ends up not necessarily supporting my doctrine. God's impassibility can be supported, for sure, I just don't think it's by this text.)

 

[RamistThomist]

And whatever your position is, remember we are speaking analogically of God. So if we do say God has emotions (like he grieves, repents, sorrow, wrath), it is in an analogical sense.

I think that is missing from this conversation.

 

[earl40]

And whatever your position is, remember we are speaking analogically of God. So if we do say God has emotions (like he grieves, repents, sorrow, wrath), it is in an analogical sense.

I think that is missing from this conversation.

If there is any similarity we would have an analogy. When we us “as if” language the concept excludes any true analogy if the discussion is about the Archtypal God. So the Arch Ecty is vital and analogy falls because God is wholly other than men,and in a class by Himself.

 

[earl40]

You are unnecessarily restricting the exegetical possibilities of this passage, brother. The Greek word used here is ὁμοιοπαθεῖς, which the KJV rightly translates as "like passions." You are reversing the English word order and making Paul say that he has "passions like" them, rather than "like (i.e., similar) passions" with them. The Greek says the latter, not the former, and there is a difference. Logically (and thus exegetically), we could conclude, as you have, that either that God has no passions, [you]or[/you] that God has different passions ("hetero-" rather than "homoio-"). As I said, you are concluding definitively the former at the expense of the latter. The latter, in my opinion, is better exegetically, since the smoother opposite of "homoio-" is "hetero-."

(Disclosure: I affirm God's impassibility, so this is not an attempt to discredit the doctrine. I just have an interest in exegetical fidelity, even when the conclusion of any one particular instance ends up not necessarily supporting my doctrine. God's impassibility can be supported, for sure, I just don't think it's by this text.)

So you believe God has passions?

 

[Taylor]

So you believe God has passions?

Did you read my entire post?

 

[RamistThomist]

If there is any similarity we would have an analogy. When we us “as if” language the concept excludes any true analogy if the discussion is about the Archtypal God. So the Arch Ecty is vital and analogy falls because God is wholly other than men,and in a class by Himself.

I think you are making the archetypal distinction carry more weight than it was intended. If you deny analogical reasoning, then you must either posit univocal or equivocal--and neither works.

 

[earl40]

Did you read my entire post?

I did, and I would leave no idea "that God has different passions" as you just did with your understanding of Greek. Note the reference given for the exclusions of passions in the WCF and how it uses it to deny any passion in God..... "There is but one only,[1] living, and true God,[2] who is infinite in being and perfection,[3] a most pure spirit,[4] invisible,[5] without body, parts,[6] or passions"

Now Acts is but one place one can go to to nail this one down and the immutability of God which rules out some other type of passion in God.

 

[earl40]

I think you are making the archetypal distinction carry more weight than it was intended. If you deny analogical reasoning, then you must either posit univocal or equivocal--and neither works.

I understand you may think you know God "in se" to some degree, and of course I do not.

 

[RamistThomist]

I understand you may think you know God "in se" to some degree, and of course I do not.

I wouldn't even know what knowing God "in himself" actually means. But since God isn't a different God than who he reveals himself to be, I'm not too worried.

When you say God is love, do you mean love in the way we do (univocal) reasoning, in a completely different way than the word love is used (equivocal) reasoning, or in a similar way, acknowledging both similarities and differences (analogical) reasoning?

 

[py3ak]

Do you think God, essentially considered, is always happy?

If you use the language of "blessed" Scripture doesn't leave much room for question:

Mark 14:61 - "the Blessed" is a title for God.
Romans 1:25 - God is blessed for ever.
Romans 9:5 - Christ is God over all blessed for ever.
2 Corinthians 11:31 - God is blessed for evermore.

 

[RamistThomist]

Blessed is better than happy (though in the classical sense, eudamion was closer to blessed). Today happy means the teenage girl who just watched a Kardashian episode.

 

[Taylor]

I did, and I would leave no idea "that God has different passions" as you just did with your understanding of Greek. Not the reference given for the exclusions of passions in the WCF and how it uses it to deny any passion in God..... "There is but one only,[1] living, and true God,[2] who is infinite in being and perfection,[3] a most pure spirit,[4] invisible,[5] without body, parts,[6] or passions"

I never said God had "different" passions. I was merely pointing out that it is exegetically fallacious to assert by means of exclusion of other perfectly valid possibilities. I did not even mention the fact that BDAG (the standard Greek lexicon) does not limit this word to just pertaining to "passions."

But, like I said above, I affirm God's impassibility (which is why I was puzzled when you asked me if I thought God has passions). I just don't think Acts 14:15 is the best place to go for it. I realize the WCF utilizes this text, of course. However, am I not permitted to affirm the doctrine while disagreeing with the choice of proof text?

...the immutability of God rules out some other type of passion in God.

Exactly. Immutability is a better anchor than Acts 14:15.

 

[Taylor]

God does not have emotions, or feeling in any way shape or form.

Of course, there are major theologians who, as I read them, disagree with "in any way, shape, or form." Consider Vos here:

119. Is there emotion or feeling in God?

Not in the sense of an intense transitory movement of emotion, something passive, whereby the will retreats into the background (compare affectus from afficere, “to be affected”). Certainly, however, in the sense of an inner divine satisfaction that accompanies the energetic expression of His will and His power and His understanding.

—Geerhardus Vos, Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 1: Theology Proper (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012), 35.​

For Vos, there is at least some sense in which God has feeling/emotion.

In truth, I am wondering if we are defining "impassibility" and "without passions" aright. The reason I wonder this is because of a curious piece I found in Turretin in which he describes our glorified bodies as possessing impassibility:

To this immortality belongs impassiblity, by which they will be subject to no passions at all, internal or external. Not to internal because there will no longer be in them the tinder of concupiscence, no defilement of sin, no inordinate desire (pathos)—but they will be wholly pure and uncontaminated. In this sense, Paul says flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven (i.e., as to their depravity or misery). Not to external either, because there will no longer be anything which can bring suffering or grief to them, for divine irradiation will keep them safe from all danger, necessity and evil. 'They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat' (Rev. 7:16). 'There shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain' (Rev. 21:4). Thus neither from without nor from within can they suffer anything; perfect health and a good state (euexia) of body will keep them free from all disease; an entire removal of all evils and the possession of all good will deliver them from all misery and danger.

—Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1992-1997), 3:619.​

Is Turretin in saying this that there will be no emotion whatsoever with our glorified bodies? I doubt it. After all, just before this paragraph he defined impassibility as the "incapability of suffering."

This is one of the reasons why I offered my caution in my first comment in this thread; these discussions often get derailed simply because nobody has or even can define these kinds of terms in a way that is agreeable to everyone, not to mention yet again that we are discussion the incomprehensible nature and being of God to begin with. So everyone ends up talking past one another, at best, and, at worst, accusing each other of heresy and worshipping false gods.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Perhaps this got lost in the fast moving discussion:

God does not move from one state to another. No variableness, no shadow of turning. No passions, no parts. Immutable. God is perfectly impassioned.

God's love, wrath, and so on are not affections, or feelings, or dispositions. Rather they are relations and actions decreed by God.

God does not have any inward changes of mind. God does not lack, hence God is eternally blessed, and we can say The Lord is my Shepherd, I shall not want. Why? God possesses all that is necessary to make us blessed, and does not need us to make Himself blessed. Any Scripture that would lead us to think otherwise of God—repenting, unknowing about this or that, lacking glory, etc.—can only be figurative, not literal.

The words we ascribe to our transitive and responsive emotions, when spoken of God in Scripture, are actually volitions, the will of God (Eph. 1:11).

God's repentance is God's volition will of a change in judicial procedure. There is not a change in God Himself.

The wrath of God is God's volitional will to stand in opposition and even destroy what is contrary to justice.

God's love is God's volitional will to set His preferences upon another and acting accordingly. God is not reacting, but eternally acting in His love.

God's jealousy is God's volitional will whereby He stands ready to inflict harm on behalf of His glory (to avenge).

God's pleasure is God's volitional will for what is good and His active pursuit of the good.

God's grief is God's volitional will to withdraw the ongoing replenishment of some measure of graces and comforts upon another.

God is never acted upon, for God is most pure act, effecting change outside of Himself in His full potency.

Muller (attached below) is also worth a read.

 

[lynnie]

Debated bothering to be nitpicky, but here goes....

Earl.....you said "This discussion is all part of the of the dual natures of Jesus and ought to be contemplated deeply and with great humility. For I know at one time I mixed the natures of Jesus on this subject, and greatly regret such."

That's OK to debate about love and wrath if you like, but when somebody specifically brings up grieving the holy spirit, please do not speak as if the Holy Spirit has a dual nature. I am sure you have a correct understanding of the trinity, but when scripture refers to the Holy Spirit, don't try to twist it back to just about Jesus in his humanity. Thanks.

 

[earl40]

Debated bothering to be nitpicky, but here goes....

Earl.....you said "This discussion is all part of the of the dual natures of Jesus and ought to be contemplated deeply and with great humility. For I know at one time I mixed the natures of Jesus on this subject, and greatly regret such."

That's OK to debate about love and wrath if you like, but when somebody specifically brings up grieving the holy spirit, please do not speak as if the Holy Spirit has a dual nature. I am sure you have a correct understanding of the trinity, but when scripture refers to the Holy Spirit, don't try to twist it back to just about Jesus in his humanity. Thanks.

Now when I speak of the dual natures of Jesus this includes the nature of The Holy Spirit. Who is neither grieved or angry in Himself, like the divine nature of Jesus, which of course is of the same essence of The Father and Spirit. Make no mistake if one thinks that God can be grieved, one is not thinking in a proper way about the nature of Our God.

 

[lynnie]

Earl, the bible commands us not to grieve the Holy Spirit. The question is what the definition of that looks like.

I am going to go back and reread Culver (he is like like Mr R I think) and take a look at Frame again, but haven't done it yet. I make no claim to having this figured out. Neither one of them would say- as I heard a nice lady say- that we cause so much pain to Jesus and he hurts because of us and God needs us to love him and not rebel or else he suffers pain.

But Earl- will you please stop trying to say the bible does not talk about grieving the Holy Spirit, in Ephesians, after the Lord was resurrected and glorified past any further human suffering.

This is from Ligonier:

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/grieving-the-holy-spirit/

The apostle Paul makes this very point in Ephesians 4:30 when he warns us not to “grieve the Holy Spirit of God.” When we sin, the Holy Spirit experiences grief in a manner appropriate to His deity. He cannot stand the presence of sin and hates it when we, His dwelling place, entertain transgression (Hab. 1:13). Yet even though the reality of His grief proves the Spirit’s personhood, His grief is not exactly the same as ours. The Spirit cannot be paralyzed by grief, and His grief is always holy, undefiled by sin, ungodly jealousy, and all the other flaws that often attend our sorrow. His grief, ultimately, is a mystery. John Calvin comments, “No language can adequately express this solemn truth, that the Holy Spirit rejoices and is glad on our account, when we are obedient to him in all things, and neither think nor speak anything, but what is pure and holy; and, on the other hand, is grieved when we admit anything into our minds that is unworthy of our calling.”

I have no desire to argue with John Calvin on this. I may not understand what it means exactly, but I won't deny it.

 

[RamistThomist]

Make no mistake if one thinks that God can be grieved, one is not thinking in a proper way about the nature of Our God.

Eph. 4:30. And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

 

[OPC'n]

Now when I speak of the dual natures of Jesus this includes the nature of The Holy Spirit. Who is neither grieved or angry in Himself, like the divine nature of Jesus, which of course is of the same essence of The Father and Spirit. Make no mistake if one thinks that God can be grieved, one is not thinking in a proper way about the nature of Our God.

I could be wrong in my assumption on your thought process, but would you say that you adhere to God having love, joy, peace, etc, but not anger, wrath, grief etc? BTW, I answered your question earlier not sure you saw it.

 

[RamistThomist]

And some clarification of the archetypal distinction. It doesn't mean that there is a realm of knowledge forever unknown to us which we can appeal to whenever there is an issue. Its range is quite limited.

For example, when the ancient fathers said God's essence was unknowable, they were combatting a specific heresy, Eunomianism. Eunomius said that God's essence was Unbegottenness. The Cappadocians' response was twofold:

a) God's essence isn't a term like Unbegottenness.
b) In any case, we have no idea what a spiritual begetting, generation, etc., is. We just posit it for lack of a better term.

That's all Archetypal can be milked for.