Anthropomorphism

[glfredrick]

...or you should rely less on man's theology and more on God's.

That's why I suggest that you actually READ some theology. What you would quickly find is that true biblical theology IS an exegesis of the Word of God, i.e., God's theology. That is also why you could not understand what I was proposing to you in the other thread.

You really are ignorant (not in a duh, I'm a stupid redneck sort of way, but in a scholarly way) of what is actually done in theological study. What you do not know (and has been proved out by your countless posts that lack coherence and the ability to pass a test of non-contradiction) is that theologians study and examine the Word of God to arrive at their conclusions, and that those conclusions MUST match the entire corpus of the Word of God. If they do not, another theologian will take them to task and write a rebuttal.

 

[DHK]

Just a note, Jesus got angry and acted on it and He is God. I assume He would not do something the that the Father would not.

Jesus did not get "angry" in the sense that man defines anger. He was always in perfect control of his emotions. He never lost his cool; never lost his temper. What He did was very controlled. He meted out justice. His emotions were under control at all times. They didn't rule him; He ruled them.

 

[webdog]

That's why I suggest that you actually READ some theology. What you would quickly find is that true biblical theology IS an exegesis of the Word of God, i.e., God's theology. That is also why you could not understand what I was proposing to you in the other thread.

You really are ignorant (not in a duh, I'm a stupid redneck sort of way, but in a scholarly way) of what is actually done in theological study. What you do not know (and has been proved out by your countless posts that lack coherence and the ability to pass a test of non-contradiction) is that theologians study and examine the Word of God to arrive at their conclusions, and that those conclusions MUST match the entire corpus of the Word of God. If they do not, another theologian will take them to task and write a rebuttal.

I know what theology is, oh educated one. I do not appreciate your snide remarks and your increasing arrogance. Might I suggest that it is YOU that might take your own advice? You have continually shown you have no clue what our side believes. Your theology doesn't square with the whole council of God's Word...so what does that tell us about your theology and who you study? Maybe spend less time on science fiction.

 

[Van]

What does scripture mean when it says God changes His mind, or repents or relents?

Jeremiah 18:7-10 tells us that God can and does alter His action based on the action of those in view. He can change from bestowing mercy, and provide perfect justice, or He can change from bestowing perfect justice and provide mercy. So based on reacting to the actions of humans, God either provides justice or mercy. So His policy for dealing with human behavior remains imutible, but whether its justice or mercy is determined by God's reaction to the people in view.

Lets take the classic example, we are all sinners and wages of sin is death. That is our future based on God's perfect justice. But if God credits our faith in Christ as righteousness, He spiritually puts us "in Christ" and we receive mercy because God does not change His mind about His promises, He keeps them.

People that say God does not really change His mind sometime say this is just anthropomorphic language, suggesting the very words of scripture have no meaning in reality. Let's leave it that I totally disagree.

 

[Skandelon]

I'd say merely anthropomorphic language to accommodate our puny human minds.

Only if that inspired author of scripture had the mind of Augustine or Calvin to explain God more appropriately, uh?

I say that in jest, but not really. I mean, if all you Calvinist can explain it "better" than what it appears here in the text, then the excuse that this is the highest our puny human minds could conceive is an insufficient explanation. In other words, Calvinist can understand "complete sovereignty" in such a way that God wouldn't ever "relent" or actually "change his mind," so why would God chose to reveal himself in this manner rather than in the more Calvinistic manner?

How does saying this in any way impugn God's holiness?

This doesn't, but when other texts which speak of God being blamed for evil, some Calvinist seem to highlight them as proof texts for God's direct agency in regard to moral evil (i.e. Luke).

 

[Van]

Why is this a point of contention? Scripture is crystal. The answer is that if God reacts and alters His course of action, then (1) either He did not know what these people were going to do, because if He did, no need to change His mind or alter His action, or (2) God did not use His knowledge, such that He took action and altered course in real time after the people did whatever they did. And so, at it core, the contention is over whether the classic view of Omniscience where God knows everything imaginable reflects the reality presented in scripture, or if the more modern view that God knows whatever He chooses to know comes closer to the mark. Since the doctrine of Calvinism rests on the classic view of Omniscience, Calvinists use arguments like "its figurative, and does not actually mean what it says. That is the real argument here.

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

Why is this a point of contention? Scripture is crystal. The answer is that if God reacts and alters His course of action, then (1) either He did not know what these people were going to do, because if He did, no need to change His mind or alter His action, or (2) God did not use His knowledge, such that He took action and altered course in real time after the people did whatever they did. And so, at it core, the contention is over whether the classic view of Omniscience where God knows everything imaginable reflects the reality presented in scripture, or if the more modern view that God knows whatever He chooses to know comes closer to the mark. Since the doctrine of Calvinism rests on the classic view of Omniscience, Calvinists use arguments like "its figurative, and does not actually mean what it says. That is the real argument here.

Is there anything that God does not know? Is He ever taken by surprise or are His plans ever thwarted by man or Satan? These are not trick questions—just curious how feel about these issues.

 

[Van]

Hi Gabe, please deal with the post. The verse is Exodus 32:14. Your question for you to answer is if God knew what the folks in view would do, why did God change His mind? One, you can say that scripture does not mean what it says, overwriting scripture with the doctrine of Omniscience as defined as God knows everything imaginable or (2) you could enlighten me with a viable alternative.

Please deal with the verse. I am willing to learn.

 

[freeatlast]

Jesus did not get "angry" in the sense that man defines anger. He was always in perfect control of his emotions. He never lost his cool; never lost his temper. What He did was very controlled. He meted out justice. His emotions were under control at all times. They didn't rule him; He ruled them.

The fact that one is in control of anger does not negate feeling. We are not talking about a machine here. God has feelings and we have feelings because we are created in His image.
The bible speaks of the Lord at times as just angry and other times as with a burning anger, furious. While i agree that he does not allow the anger to control Him, he does get angry which is a feeling.

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

Hi Gabe, please deal with the post. The verse is Exodus 32:14. Your question for you to answer is if God knew what the folks in view would do, why did God change His mind? One, you can say that scripture does not mean what it says, overwriting scripture with the doctrine of Omniscience as defined as God knows everything imaginable or (2) you could enlighten me with a viable alternative.

Please deal with the verse. I am willing to learn.

Wow-- so you answer my question by trying to coherence me to answer your question!—You’re my kinda guy---lol---but I’ll give you this—the answer to your question lies in what role prayer plays in relation to an all knowing God—who can know our needs even before we ask (Matt 6:8), yet not met our needs until we ask for His provision (Jam 4:2). Did God really change His mind—is that the true meaning of relent in this passage—or did God simply react to one of His children who came to Him in prayer when He threatened judgment. Is there really any proof that God did not know what would happen---unless of coarse you think answered prayer proves God doesn’t know---then the verse does little more than demonstrate the power of prayer! Now will you be so kind as to answer my original questions b/c it really seems you have a problem with God being all knowing!

 

[DHK]

The fact that one is in control of anger does not negate feeling. We are not talking about a machine here. God has feelings and we have feelings because we are created in His image.
The bible speaks of the Lord at times as just angry and other times as with a burning anger, furious. While i agree that he does not allow the anger to control Him, he does get angry which is a feeling.

Feelings are a human emotion. They are not part of the image of God. Wherever would you get that from. Animals have "feelings" also. I observe people who have pet dogs, like my neighbor. He is able to tease the dog and make him very angry. He is able to play with the dog and make him very happy. He is able to feed the dog and make him both content and satisfied. Different emotions are displayed by the dog. The dog shows distinct emotions (of dislike) towards uniformed people as they come toward the house--an odd behavior. Dogs are not made in the image of God.

Christ, when he cleansed the Temple, had righteous indignation. He wasn't angry, as such. He never lost his temper. This was the one time when God could experience emotion, for God incarnate was in the flesh. Otherwise God is spirit; they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth. How does "spirit" have emotions? How does "spirit" cry? Those emotions are human, not in the spiritual realm, and certainly not of God.

 

[freeatlast]

Feelings are a human emotion. They are not part of the image of God. Wherever would you get that from. Animals have "feelings" also. I observe people who have pet dogs, like my neighbor. He is able to tease the dog and make him very angry. He is able to play with the dog and make him very happy. He is able to feed the dog and make him both content and satisfied. Different emotions are displayed by the dog. The dog shows distinct emotions (of dislike) towards uniformed people as they come toward the house--an odd behavior. Dogs are not made in the image of God.

Christ, when he cleansed the Temple, had righteous indignation. He wasn't angry, as such. He never lost his temper. This was the one time when God could experience emotion, for God incarnate was in the flesh. Otherwise God is spirit; they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth. How does "spirit" have emotions? How does "spirit" cry? Those emotions are human, not in the spiritual realm, and certainly not of God.

No wonder you are so confused about this. Anger does not mean anger, God does not have feelings, Show me in scripture that God does not have feelings?

 

[J.D.]

Feelings are a human emotion. They are not part of the image of God. Wherever would you get that from. Animals have "feelings" also. I observe people who have pet dogs, like my neighbor. He is able to tease the dog and make him very angry. He is able to play with the dog and make him very happy. He is able to feed the dog and make him both content and satisfied. Different emotions are displayed by the dog. The dog shows distinct emotions (of dislike) towards uniformed people as they come toward the house--an odd behavior. Dogs are not made in the image of God.

Christ, when he cleansed the Temple, had righteous indignation. He wasn't angry, as such. He never lost his temper. This was the one time when God could experience emotion, for God incarnate was in the flesh. Otherwise God is spirit; they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth. How does "spirit" have emotions? How does "spirit" cry? Those emotions are human, not in the spiritual realm, and certainly not of God.

DHK, we agree! I believe God is impassive. However, I think Jesus' emotions were real, not contrived. As the son of man he was fully human and had familial emotions both toward God and mankind, and toward his Jewish brethren in particular. But nevertheless, God's purpose in emotional displays were anthropomorphic - speaking of heavenly things in an earthly language.

 

[DHK]

DHK, we agree! I believe God is impassive. However, I think Jesus' emotions were real, not contrived. As the son of man he was fully human and had familial emotions both toward God and mankind, and toward his Jewish brethren in particular. But nevertheless, God's purpose in emotional displays were anthropomorphic - speaking of heavenly things in an earthly language.

Well stated. I agree.

 

[DHK]

No wonder you are so confused about this. Anger does not mean anger, God does not have feelings, Show me in scripture that God does not have feelings?

Try to understand it this way. Most people consider emotions a weakness in man. If you are angry you are out of control.
The emotion of lust is sin.
The emotion of love is often sin. Biblical love is not an emotion, but rather more of a duty, a sacrifice. "Greater love hath no man that this: that a man lay down his life for another." There is not necessarily any emotion in that action, but the emotion or feeling of pain.
Many men believe that pain is a weakness.

Of course there are emotions that we all like to "feel": joy, peace. But does God actually "feel" those as emotions. In essence he IS peace. His very essence IS love. He doesn't have the emotion; He is love.

God has need of nothing and is not lacking in anything. He is perfect and complete in all things. Emotions are subjective and things that we measure subjectively. What is the measurement of the emotion of anger, love, peace, etc. How do we know when any one of those is "perfect," when we have reached the absolute pinnacle of any one of those emotions? We can't. It is subjective.

God is not subjective. He is perfect. He has need of nothing. His very essence is love, peace, justice, holiness. Dwell on his attributes. Who is God? God is......
But God does not have.....
If God is love, then God does not need to have the emotion of love. The emotion is purely human.

 

[freeatlast]

Try to understand it this way. Most people consider emotions a weakness in man. If you are angry you are out of control.
The emotion of lust is sin.
The emotion of love is often sin. Biblical love is not an emotion, but rather more of a duty, a sacrifice. "Greater love hath no man that this: that a man lay down his life for another." There is not necessarily any emotion in that action, but the emotion or feeling of pain.
Many men believe that pain is a weakness.

Of course there are emotions that we all like to "feel": joy, peace. But does God actually "feel" those as emotions. In essence he IS peace. His very essence IS love. He doesn't have the emotion; He is love.

God has need of nothing and is not lacking in anything. He is perfect and complete in all things. Emotions are subjective and things that we measure subjectively. What is the measurement of the emotion of anger, love, peace, etc. How do we know when any one of those is "perfect," when we have reached the absolute pinnacle of any one of those emotions? We can't. It is subjective.

God is not subjective. He is perfect. He has need of nothing. His very essence is love, peace, justice, holiness. Dwell on his attributes. Who is God? God is......
But God does not have.....
If God is love, then God does not need to have the emotion of love. The emotion is purely human.

Purely speculative. There is not even the slightest possibility of any evidence to back up your claim.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Stop calling God's emotions anthropomorphic. It's anthropopathism.

There's my snide educated remark. :wavey:

 

[Van]

Hi Gabe, why do you say I have a problem? You just posted scripture does not mean what it says. Your answer that God just "reacted" to prayer does not move the ball down the field, why did He need to react, since He knew according to the "God knows everything imaginable definition of Omniscience," whatever was going to happen. Why can you not see that your view makes scripture to no effect? And you say I have a problem.

 

[DHK]

Stop calling God's emotions anthropomorphic. It's anthropopathism.

There's my snide educated remark. :wavey:

You are quite right. I just keep forgetting the spelling of that word, so I revert to the other. A lame excuse, eh?

 

[DHK]

Purely speculative. There is not even the slightest possibility of any evidence to back up your claim.

The attributes of God back it up.
The nature of God backs it up.
The sufficiency of God backs it up.
BTW, Does God have tears to display his emotions?