On November 5, 2009 9:18 AM, Kaleb asked,
I don't understand "without passions". Can you explain passions in this use of the word? Also, how does the prooftext, in which Paul declares himself a man of like passions, prove that G-d is without passions (instead of different passions, etc.) It seems like a logic stretch if not a fallacy to me.I can't explain it all completely, because God is infinite. But I think I can show that the Bible doesn't contradict itself.
The Bible says God is perfect, and it also says God does not change. These are logically compatible, because if God changed "for the better," then He wasn't perfect. If he changes "for the worse," then He's no longer perfect.
The word "passion" in the Confession is related to another old word, "impassable," which doesn't mean wanting to get around the slow traffic in the right lane. Here is the definition of "passion" from Noah Webster's 1828 edition:
1. The impression or effect of an external agent upon a body; that which is suffered or received.To say that God is without passions is to say that God cannot be acted upon by an external agent. There is nothing in the universe powerful enough to change God from what God wants to be or from what God is by His very nature. Nor would we want there to be an external agent more powerful than God, nor would we want God to change.
"A body at rest affords us no idea of any active power to move, and when set in motion, it is rather a passion than an action in it."
2. Susceptibility of impressions from external agents.
The Bible also says God knows the end from the beginning. Everything that exists was created by God. It was created the way God wanted it to be created, because God is perfect, and because there is nothing powerful enough to prevent God from creating things the way He wants them to be.
God created Judas Iscariot just the way God wanted him to be. God prophesied the betrayal of Christ by Judas (Matthew 27:3-10; Luke 22:22; Matthew 26:24). To say that God is "without passions" is to say that Judas' betrayal of God's own Son did not affect God, did not change God's essential nature, nor cause Him to lose control, etc. God caused the betrayal to happen. It was a necessary part of His plan. Of course, God by His very nature hates sin and loves His only Son, so God condemned Judas' sinful attack on Jesus, but the feelings God had were not caused or generated by Judas with God passively being affected.
As far as humans go, we see God being angry and sorrowful, but logically the creature does not control the Creator.
Looked at another way, God created the creation in order to display His nature, and to bring glory to Him. It's not that the creature causes God to act, but God acts because He created the creature in order to be an occasion for the exhibition of God's attributes.
Gordon H. Clark
writes:What is meant by saying that God has no passions? Is the word passion used in its contemporary romantic sense, or does it have a broader meaning? Is an emotion a passion? If it is, shall we say that God has no emotions? Do we ordinarily consider it a compliment when we call a man emotional? Can we trust a person who has violent ups and downs? Is it not unwise to act on the spur of the moment? Would then an emotional God be dependable? How could God have emotions, if he is immutable?I am reading through Robert Reymond's Systematic Theology
But someone says, God is love, and love is an emotion, is it not? Well, is it? Or, better, is what we call love in God an emotion? For that matter, is our love for God an emotion? In common conversation we do not think it makes much sense to command one person to love another. We are inclined to think it unreasonable to demand that a man should get emotional about something that happens to please us but does not please him. Love cannot be commanded. Yet God commands our love. He issues an order: Thou shall love the Lord thy God. Is this a command to become emotional? To have ups and downs, sudden surges and ebbings? Oh, No! someone replies. Our love should never ebb. But if it never ebbs, it cannot surge. Without a down, there can be no up. We agree, do we not, that our love for God should be steady. And we agree that God's love for us is unchangeable. Then is not such a mental activity or attitude better designated a volition than an emotion?
It is interesting to note that in modern psychology, not initiated by but vigorously advanced by Freudianism, the emotions are greatly emphasized. On the other hand there is little discussion of the will. The situation was different in the time of Calvin and before. Perhaps some people think that the medieval theologians were overly intellectual. No doubt they think the same of Calvin too, for he emphasized the will and paid little or no attention to the emotions.
Now, those who fear that people may become too intellectual — though as a college professor I see little danger — ought not to shy away from a very practical application of this discussion. In evangelism should the evangelist appeal to the emotions? Many do. Or, would it be better to appeal to the will? Which is it better to say to an audience: "Stir up your emotions," or, "Decide to make Christ your Lord"? The way in which these questions are answered throws light on whether God is emotional or immutable and dependable.
Consider Augustus Toplady. This great Anglican Calvinist, author of Rock of Ages, approves Bradwardine (Complete Works, pp. 106, 107, London 1869) who said, "God is not irascible and appeasable, liable to emotions of joy and sorrow, or in any respect passive. Later on p. 687 Toplady adds in his own words, "When love is predicated of God, we do not mean that he is possessed of it as a passion or affection. In us it is such [sometimes?]; but if, considered in that sense, it should be ascribed to the Deity, it would be utterly subversive of the simplicity, perfection, and independency of his being. Love, therefore, when attributed to him, signifies, (1) his eternal benevolence, i.e., his everlasting will, purpose, and determination to deliver, bless, and save his people." So Toplady.
, and he has a discussion of this issue on pp. 177ff which is a little more personal and less intellectual than Clark's. He points out that God does indeed genuinely "feel" the emotions ascribed to Him in the Bible; God is not "apathetic." But God's feelings are a part of His nature, and the creature is not exercising power over the Creator independent of the Creator's plan from the beginning.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment