Can God Care Without Emotions?

[Apologiaphoenix]

How does God love us?

----------------

If God doesn't have emotions, can He care about you and me? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Yesterday, I was browsing Facebook and I saw someone make a post asking how God can care about us if He has no emotions? This idea has been known as impassibility where God has no emotions. It has been the teaching of Christians, Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox, up until around the 1800's.

If you want to respond and say "But look at this text where it says God was moved with compassion or was angry or XYZ!", then I will tell you "Look at this text where it talks about the hand of God or the eyes of the Lord or any other number of bodily references? Most of us know that those bodily references are not to a real physical body, but they are describing God in ways we can understand. I do the same with the passages about emotions.

How about Jesus? Jesus had emotions in the text! Surely you're not suggesting that those are just figures of speech are you?

Not at all! Jesus definitely has emotions and had them in his earthly journey and I contend He still has them today. However, if you want to say that means God has emotions, then you have the same problem again. Jesus still has a body and if you want to go this route, then you need to say that God has a body as well. If you want to say because of Jesus, God has emotions, but not a body, then you're just picking and choosing.

Yet the question still remains. If we accept this, how can we say God cares about us or God loves us? It sounds like a difficult question until we do consider that we regularly do the same thing without emotions.

If you are married and think that the degree to which you love your spouse is dependent on your emotions, then you are going to be in for a hard time. There could be times you have a great degree of negative emotions towards them, such as in an argument, and when you do, you can still say that you love them. When you make a promise to love until death do you part, you do not make a promise to have an emotion. No one can make themselves have an emotion or else we would all make ourselves happy all the time. We can make ourselves act, even when a part of us doesn't want to. Many of us do that when we get out of bed in the morning.

Too often, we start this also with ourselves. "When I have love, I can have emotion. Why not God?" It's a mistake to look at us and say "God is like that." God is not really like anything at all. As Scripture says "To whom can you compare me?" No one. It is really that we are like God. God is said to be the Father from whom all fatherhood comes. It's not that a man can say "I am a father and I can see God is like that." It's really "God is a Father, and I am somewhat like Him."

God loves us and God cares for us and that is not because He has an emotion, but because that is who He is. God is not loving, but rather God is love. God does not act and then develop an emotion, as if He was a changeable being in time. God consistently acts out of His nature.

We can say all day long "I don't understand how that works," but why should that matter? We can go to our churches and say that we believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. Is anyone going to stand up and say that you understand entirely how that works? If we think we understand God, then we have a really small God, hardly one worthy of worship.

Also, if one wants to question impassibility and simplicity and other doctrines, that is fine, but we have to ask why. If there is a consistent line that goes from the early church to modern times accepted by all three branches, what did we discover that they did not know? Before we take down a fence, we should see why it was put up in the first place.

God can have love towards us and have compassion towards us without emotion. Is that hard for me to understand? Of course, but what of God is easy to understand?

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

[tabibito]

Eisegesis pure and simple. The Bible declares that God feels, and that he can change. To support the concept of an impassible God, the scriptures have to have "so to speak" added in too many places - and not just in poetical passages. The concept of a God who cannot feel emotion or pain and cannot change is foreign to the Hebrews' and founding Christians' concepts: it begins with Greek philosophical objections to the (behaviour of) Greek gods.
Man is made in the image and likeness of God - man is an analogue of God. If the analogue of God has eyes and ears, one would logically expect the original to have something resembling eyes and ears.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Eisegesis pure and simple. The Bible declares that God feels, and that he can change. To support the concept of an impassible God, the scriptures have to have "so to speak" added in too many places - and not just in poetical passages. The concept of a God who cannot feel emotion or pain and cannot change is foreign to the Hebrews' and founding Christians' concepts: it begins with Greek philosophical objections to the (behaviour of) Greek gods.
Man is made in the image and likeness of God - man is an analogue of God. If the analogue of God has eyes and ears, one would logically expect the original to have something resembling eyes and ears.

A God that is essentially embodied though is a God that is also part of matter in motion and a God that is subject to change. Anything that can change its essential nature is not the ultimate in perfection.

[tabibito]

A God that is essentially embodied though is a God that is also part of matter in motion and a God that is subject to change. Anything that can change its essential nature is not the ultimate in perfection.

In short, God can't change except when he can.

[Apologiaphoenix]

In short, God can't change except when he can.

Except He never does.

[Littlejoe]

A God that is essentially embodied though is a God that is also part of matter in motion and a God that is subject to change. Anything that can change its essential nature is not the ultimate in perfection.

So argued the Greek Philosopher Xenophanes, and championed by Plato, grafted into the Church by Augustine (who wouldn't convert to Christianity until the "absurdity of the God of the OT" was sufficiently allegorized by Ambrose)

Source: St. Augustine’s Confessions, Book VI, p. 285

"For those absurdities which in those scriptures were wont to offend me, after I heard the divers (diverse) of them expounded properly, I referred now to the depth of the mystery: yea and the authority of that Book appeared so much more the venerable, and so much more worthy of religious credit."

© Copyright Original Source

(clarification mine)

This was later championed by some ECF's, then Thomas Aquinas...and ultimately, John Calvin who was greatly influenced and inspired by Martin Luthers writings...Martin Luther was an Augustinian Monk. I have an indepth study on this linkage...

However, that logic does not follow. Change in itself does not necessarily constitute a change in nature. God can change his emotion and not change his nature...Is there only ONE kind of perfection? Says who?

The Bible is full of references to God changing from sorrow to anger etc. Starting with a premise of what God is, then reading it into scripture is the very definition of eisegesis. As Tabibito pointed out. God is how scripture describes him, not as how you want to see him.

The question, then, is how a God whose very definition (according to Greek metaphysics) is immutable and impassible, can somehow become a human with feelings, emotions...a physical body? How does a God whose essence is (supposedly) above time and change become anything new? How does a God who is above emotion and suffering...suffer and die on the cross?

[Apologiaphoenix]

So argued the Greek Philosopher Xenophanes, and championed by Plato, grafted into the Church by Augustine (who wouldn't convert to Christianity until the "absurdity of the God of the OT" was sufficiently allegorized by Ambrose)

Source: St. Augustine’s Confessions, Book VI, p. 285

"For those absurdities which in those scriptures were wont to offend me, after I heard the divers (diverse) of them expounded properly, I referred now to the depth of the mystery: yea and the authority of that Book appeared so much more the venerable, and so much more worthy of religious credit."

© Copyright Original Source

(clarification mine)

This was later championed by some ECF's, then Thomas Aquinas...and ultimately, John Calvin who was greatly influenced and inspired by Martin Luthers writings...Martin Luther was an Augustinian Monk. I have an indepth study on this linkage...

However, that logic does not follow. Change in itself does not necessarily constitute a change in nature. God can change his emotion and not change his nature...Is there only ONE kind of perfection? Says who?

The Bible is full of references to God changing from sorrow to anger etc. Starting with a premise of what God is, then reading it into scripture is the very definition of eisegesis. As Tabibito pointed out. God is how scripture describes him, not as how you want to see him.

The question, then, is how a God whose very definition (according to Greek metaphysics) is immutable and impassible, can somehow become a human with feelings, emotions...a physical body? How does a God whose essence is (supposedly) above time and change become anything new? How does a God who is above emotion and suffering...suffer and die on the cross?

The Bible is full of descriptions of a God who has a body. Therefore, God has a body. Right?

How can God become human? Why not? The second person of the Trinity never changes the nature of deity, but he does have a human nature in addition. God doesn't change.

God changing His emotion places Him in time, being a part of the creation at that point. God is bound by nothing, not even time.

[Littlejoe]

The Bible is full of descriptions of a God who has a body. Therefore, God has a body. Right?

How can God become human? Why not? The second person of the Trinity never changes the nature of deity, but he does have a human nature in addition. God doesn't change.

God changing His emotion places Him in time, being a part of the creation at that point. God is bound by nothing, not even time.

You're saying it's impossible for God to manifest in a body?

So, you believe the Nestorian heresy?

Why must God be bound to time in order to interact with it? You don't believe God is omnipotent?

[tabibito]

So argued the Greek Philosopher Xenophanes, and championed by Plato, grafted into the Church by Augustine (who wouldn't convert to Christianity until the "absurdity of the God of the OT" was sufficiently allegorized by Ambrose)

Source: St. Augustine’s Confessions, Book VI, p. 285

"For those absurdities which in those scriptures were wont to offend me, after I heard the divers (diverse) of them expounded properly, I referred now to the depth of the mystery: yea and the authority of that Book appeared so much more the venerable, and so much more worthy of religious credit."

© Copyright Original Source

(clarification mine)

This was later championed by some ECF's, then Thomas Aquinas...and ultimately, John Calvin who was greatly influenced and inspired by Martin Luthers writings...Martin Luther was an Augustinian Monk. I have an indepth study on this linkage...

However, that logic does not follow. Change in itself does not necessarily constitute a change in nature. God can change his emotion and not change his nature...Is there only ONE kind of perfection? Says who?

The Bible is full of references to God changing from sorrow to anger etc. Starting with a premise of what God is, then reading it into scripture is the very definition of eisegesis. As Tabibito pointed out. God is how scripture describes him, not as how you want to see him.

The question, then, is how a God whose very definition (according to Greek metaphysics) is immutable and impassible, can somehow become a human with feelings, emotions...a physical body? How does a God whose essence is (supposedly) above time and change become anything new? How does a God who is above emotion and suffering...suffer and die on the cross?

Nice write up.

Indeed - in becoming flesh he became lesser than the angels, no longer possessed the glory he had prior to becoming flesh, and of course, ultimately secured the church with his own blood.

[Apologiaphoenix]

You're saying it's impossible for God to manifest in a body?

So, you believe the Nestorian heresy?

Why must God be bound to time in order to interact with it? You don't believe God is omnipotent?

Wow.

So I said God came in a body, but He is not essentially bodily, means it is impossible for God to manifest in a body?

I also supposedly said that God cannot interact with time?

I'm wondering how much wrong you want to get the position of classical theism.

[Littlejoe]

Wow.

So I said God came in a body, but He is not essentially bodily, means it is impossible for God to manifest in a body?

You said

"The Bible is full of descriptions of a God who has a body. Therefore, God has a body. Right?

To which I replied:

You're saying it's impossible for God to manifest in a body?

So,the answer is God came in a body...therefore, God does indeed have a body. Right?

I also supposedly said that God cannot interact with time?

I'm wondering how much wrong you want to get the position of classical theism.

Perhaps you can explain why God CAN interact with time and not be bound by it but having emotions TIES Him to time?

I'm an Open Theist, I see a lot of problems in modern "classical" theism. The Greek influence on our interpretation runs strong and deep as you've amply shown.

[Apologiaphoenix]

So,the answer is God came in a body...therefore, God does indeed have a body. Right?

No. Jesus is not the Trinity. The second person of the Trinity has a body. The Godhead does not have a body.

Perhaps you can explain why God CAN interact with time and not be bound by it but having emotions TIES Him to time?

Because He is interacting with it and not changing at the same time.

I'm an Open Theist, I see a lot of problems in modern "classical" theism. The Greek influence on our interpretation runs strong and deep as you've amply shown.

The Greek influence runs when we do logic, yet I don't see any desire to throw away Aristotelian logic just because it was Greek. Where the Greeks were right, they were right.

[Littlejoe]

No. Jesus is not the Trinity. The second person of the Trinity has a body. The Godhead does not have a body.

So, again, God can manifest in a body...therefore, the supposed anthropomorphisms could easily allude to Theophany. ergo, God can have a body, as the Bible describes...when He wants to. This isn't that hard AP

Because He is interacting with it and not changing at the same time.

You kind of explained the first part but didn't really, then totally neglected to answer the second part. You do that a lot. So answer why emotions ties God to time. How is THAT interaction different? How does God "interact" with time and yet not change?

The Greek influence runs when we do logic, yet I don't see any desire to throw away Aristotelian logic just because it was Greek. Where the Greeks were right, they were right.

But, you haven't shown them to be right, you've simply read their "logic" into scripture when it's plainly not there...again, that eisegesis plain and simply.
Taking the Greek thought on metaphysics over Hebraic thought is dangerous and leads to obviously wrong theology...

[Apologiaphoenix]

So, again, God can manifest in a body...therefore, the supposed anthropomorphisms could easily allude to Theophany. ergo, God can have a body, as the Bible describes...when He wants to. This isn't that hard AP

Once again.....

I have kept saying the word "essentially". Do you not notice something important about that?

[/QUOTE]You kind of explained the first part but didn't really, then totally neglected to answer the second part. You do that a lot. So answer why emotions ties God to time. How is THAT interaction different? How does God "interact" with time and yet not change? [/QUOTE]

God goes from feeling love to not feeling love? God goes from feeling anger to not feeling anger? Is God going to be eternally angry because some people rejected Him, or eternally rejected?

How does God interact with time and yet not change? How should I know how He does that? Scripture just says He doesn't change and any change would really make God a part of the creation.

But, you haven't shown them to be right, you've simply read their "logic" into scripture when it's plainly not there...again, that eisegesis plain and simply.
Taking the Greek thought on metaphysics over Hebraic thought is dangerous and leads to obviously wrong theology...

I could just as easily say you have not shown them to be wrong and what I am saying is in line with much of Jewish thought. Moses Maimonides would agree with the theology of Aquinas on numerous counts related to this. I also contend that I can point to references, such as God gathering His children under His wings or being a rock or a consuming fire that you do not take literally as well. Why not?

[tabibito]

No. Jesus is not the Trinity. The second person of the Trinity has a body. The Godhead does not have a body.

That would work only if Logos was not God. If the second person of the trinity is God, God has a body. Nor do we find any cause to believe that a spirit does not have shape and form.

Because He is interacting with it and not changing at the same time.

Does God get angry? Feel love? Not even the most ardent of the early church fathers supporting God's immutability bought into the idea that God was wholly unchangeable - they always claimed that there was something that could change. Likewise, modern day theologians mostly (and at the least) allow that the incarnate Jesus did not have the glory that he had when he did before the incarnation. Logos changed: if God is trinity and the second person of the trinity changed, the change affected all of the trinity. Only if the second person of the trinity were separate from the godhead could the godhead avoid change.

The Greek influence runs when we do logic, yet I don't see any desire to throw away Aristotelian logic just because it was Greek. Where the Greeks were right, they were right.

And with regard to the nature of the Christian god, they were not right. Too many passages of scripture had to be changed for that to be possible: e.g. "Logos became flesh" gets reinterpreted to mean "Logos became flesh, so to speak," or even "Logos was not transformed, he simply united with the body that he formed from the flesh of the woman, but it can still be said that it was his flesh because the body was his possession." One excuse after another to disallow the possibility that the authors of scripture actually said what they meant.

Scripture just says He doesn't change and any change would really make God a part of the creation.

Only one passage of scripture can be said to indicate that God does not change, and that passage in full context defines what is meant: Israel changed in attitude toward God, but God does not change therefore Israel was not consumed. That is a long way from asserting immutability. The second part doesn't have any scriptural support, unless you allow that the incarnate Christ was in fact part of creation.