Posted by deangonzales on February 28, 2009
Some Christians seem to think that a belief in God’s absolute sovereignty discourages a healthy prayer life. In reality, God’s sovereignty provides us with some of the greatest motivations to pray. I’d like to highlight just two of those motivations from Proverbs 21:30-31:
“There is no wisdom and no understanding and no counsel against the LORD. The horse is prepared for the day of battle, but victory belongs to the LORD” (NAS).
The Sovereignty of God keeps us from despair (21:30).
At first glance, this verse appears to describe a sinless environment. Only in a world without sin can it be said, “There is no wisdom, understanding, or counsel against the Lord.” Such a condition existed prior to the fall and will exist after the return of Christ. In contrast, we see plenty opposition to the Lord in our day. In the language of Psalm 2:2, “The kings of the earth take their stand, And the rulers take counsel together Against the LORD and against His Anointed” (NAS).
However, Proverbs 21:30 is not teaching the absence of opposition to God. Actually, it’s teaching the non-existence of human wisdom, understanding, or counsel that can prevail against the Lord (see NIV, NLT, ESV). It’s expressing the same truth expressed by the Scripture writer in Psalm 33:10-11: “The LORD nullifies the counsel of the nations; He frustrates the plans of the peoples. The counsel of the LORD stands forever, the plans of His heart from generation to generation” (NAS).
This is, in fact, a great encouragement to pray. The whole world stands in opposition to God. All the great intellectuals, philosophers, scientists, and world leaders take counsel against the Lord and His Christ. But they will not prevail. According to the text before us, we have the assurance that their counsel shall fail. God’s purposes and promises shall never be thwarted. Hence, the sovereignty of God should to encourage us to persevere in prayer, knowing that our labors will not be in vain (see also Romans 8:28; 1 Corinthians 15:58; Galatians 6:9).
The Sovereignty of God keeps us from vain confidence (21:31).
Although the horse may be legitimately employed as a means of waging war, it should never be the ultimate ground or basis of our confidence. “Victory,” says the wise man, “belongs to the Lord.” This is why, according to Deuteronomy 17:16, God forbade the king of Israel from multiplying horses. He did not want Israel’s king to rely too heavily on the means of warfare and protection but rather to place his ultimate confidence in the Lord. And history shows that when Solomon violated this commandment, the nation of Israel began its decent from greatness to weakness and shame.
We can preach the gospel, we can pass out good literature, we can invite people to church, and we can employ a host of other legitimate means to extend Christ’s kingdom. But ultimately, as the apostle Paul puts it, “So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth” (1 Corinthians 3:7, NAS). Brothers and sisters, that ought to encourage us to pray! If success is ultimately determined and achieved by the sovereign power of Almighty God, then what better can we do than to pray, “Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:10, NAS).
In summary, these important verses from Proverbs reminded that a belief in the sovereignty of God does not hinder prayer. On the contrary, God’s sovereignty provides plenty of motivation to pray. Now let’s get to it!
Bob Gonzales, Dean
Reformed Baptist Seminary
Posted by deangonzales on February 25, 2009
Recently, I posted an essay entitled “There Is No Pain, You Are Misreading”: Is God “Comfortably Numb”? which addresses the question, Does God have feelings? The series focuses on the relationship of divine emotivity (i.e., emotions predicated of God in the Bible) to the doctrine of God’s transcendence, sovereignty, and immutability. I received a number of comments on the posts, some public and some private, most positive. One such response came from a young college student named Ben Maas. Ben is a member of First Presbyterian Church, Ada, Ohio, and is currently pursuing a double major in Pharmacy and Philosophy at Ohio Northern University. I was particularly impressed with Ben’s reflections on the subject not merely because Ben generally agreed with my position ☺ but, more importantly, because of their clarity and cogency (at least in my estimation). Initially, I thought of asking Ben to append his extended reflections as a “comment” to one of my posts. However, since Ben’s reflections not only agreed with the thrust of my argument but in some ways complemented and advanced my case, I asked Ben permission to upload his reflections as a separate post on the RBS Tabletalk blog. He humbly and graciously agreed. I’ve interspersed a few of my own comments by way of footnote to clarify or expand on something Ben says. So, I invite you to read Ben’s “twelve theses” on the relationship of divine emotivity and divine impassibility below. And feel free to comment if you wish.
Your servant,
Bob Gonzales
Twelve Theses on the Relationship of Divine Emotivity and Impassibility
1. To say that God is unchangeable and therefore He cannot have different emotions at different points in time is to beg the question, for the debate involves demarcating exactly what part of Him is changeable and what part is unchangeable. Seeing as He acts differently at different points in time (e.g. God created the universe only once) it is clearly unacceptable to assume a completely unified immutability in God. There has to be some aspect of change.
2. To say that God would contradict Himself if He willed Himself to have emotions (because He would be bound to His decree and therefore “have no choice” in His actions) is to introduce awkward extra-biblical assumptions and is self-refuting, for He has clearly bound Himself to His decree in terms of His actions. His volitions are clearly examples of consequential necessities and, therefore, we cannot say a priori that emotions cannot reside in the same category. Just as God has “no choice” not to do something if He has decreed to do that thing, so also He can decree Himself to have emotions.
3. That God is forever blessed and ultimately pleased with all of creation and providence does not preclude the notion that He may be proximately displeased with specific aspects (e.g. Gen. 6:6). If one objects that this is a contradiction, i.e., for God to be eternally blessed yet displeased, or for God to be angry towards one part of creation and pleased towards another simultaneously, then I respond to him that he is not properly treating the distinctions previously set forth. (1) To say He is ultimately pleased with a course of events as a whole is not to say He is proximately pleased at every point in time during those events. For instance, I can look at a person’s injury or surgery and be displeased or grieved, even if I possess the certain knowledge that the injury or surgery will ultimately improve them. In fact, even if I were in God’s role and organized that entire situation providentially, I would still be proximately displeased at that point, but not universally displeased. (2) The propositions would be contradictory only if God acted differently in the exact same circumstances, i.e., towards the same object and at the same time and in the same place. That is never claimed for those with a more nuanced view of impassibility (e.g. Dr. Gonzales and me). Lastly, God acts differently at the same time in different places towards different objects, and no one grants that as a contradiction. He can likewise will internal emotions at different times toward different objects. No one can deny that God is complex in a sense: just as it sounds almost absurd that God may listen to every believer’s prayers occurring simultaneously, so also He can have specific emotional dispositions towards different people at the same time. This is not a contradiction.
4. The explanation that all emotional descriptions of God in Scripture are anthropopathic and purely volitional does not cover many passages, namely, the ones that describe only God’s internal state (again Gen. 6:6). If it is true that love, grief, joy, etc., are not emotional in the archetypal form, then it makes no sense to speak of these apart from specific actions at any point. Genesis 6:6 and other verses clearly speak only of God’s internal state, and consequently they cannot be interpreted as solely external or volitional.[1]
5. That some humans are overly emotional and can wrongly act off their emotions does not preclude that God may properly use emotions.
6. It is possible even as humans to will one’s own emotion (e.g. getting “pumped up” before an athletic event) and consequently such a concept cannot be viewed as impossible. And even if it were impossible for humans, it could not be deemed a divine impossibility.[2]
7. It is possible to affirm impassibility, i.e. that God is not internally affected by His creation, and divine emotivity, i.e. that God brings about His own emotional/internal changes. It is improper to assume that imputing any emotion to God requires the kind of interpersonal relationship advanced by process theology, open theism, or pantheism as a logical consequence.
8. Emotions such as anger, love, joy, etc., when predicated of humans, always seem to convey both an internal reaction and an external action (God’s reaction is not involuntary as ours would be, however; see point #11). This is evident from the light of nature, and if we have no reason in Scripture to interpret God’s love and grief differently from the concepts that immediately appear in our minds, then that is how they should be interpreted. To do otherwise – to affirm a narrow kind of impassibility that precludes genuine emotions – would be to eisegete, not protect the Creator-creature distinction.
9. To argue that the stance of the more nuanced impassibility (advanced by Dr. Gonzales and some of the other Reformed writers he cited) is arguing ectypically, from creature to Creator (and therefore idolatrously), is to assert another awkward extra-biblical assumption. If we cannot legitimately argue from effect to cause, especially when Scripture itself has not warranted interpreting God’s emotions anthropopathically,[3] then we run into a horde of interpreting problems. If Scripture tells us that we are made in the image of God, and if it does not tell us of a stark difference between divine and human emotions (in that the former does not entail any internal motions), and if the words for various emotions are used to describe God (e.g. love, joy, anger), then the plain reading of the text demands an emotive reading of God. Done with the proper understanding of God, and without any absurd presuppositions, such as ones leading to process theology and open theism, we can understand God properly. If one seriously objects that this is arguing ectypically, then my response is merely that it is the best we’ve got – what else would be base our interpretations off of but the obvious meaning, especially when no other Scripture demands that it be interpreted otherwise? If that is idolatrous, I have no idea how to possibly avoid it, or how inserting an extra-biblical principle is better, assuming a kind of strict or absolute impassibility is not proven in other Scripture.
10. Stemming from #9, it follows that a specific hermeneutic that denies a literal interpretation is allowed (perhaps mandated) if other Scripture warrants it. Therefore, those holding to my view of impassibility will not be obliged to believe that God actually repented of His actions at any point in the Bible when this is mentioned, for we know that omniscience explicitly denies this.
11. I have always thought of immutability in terms of an equation which God has Himself ordained: A+B=C, wherein A=God’s holy and immutable character, B=a human action, and C=God’s reaction to the human action. Seeing as God ordains every single aspect of this equation, He is still entirely sovereign over this and therefore not passible as humans are. He never meets a legitimate action that prompts an involuntary reaction from Him. He is in control of all ends and means. This equation also understands immutability properly in that there are specific changeable and unchangeable aspects of God.
12. Many emotions, anger and love especially, demand an internal and emotion aspect to them. This is plain from the light of nature. It is simply unimaginable to conceive of the King of universe who purportedly hates sin to have a smile on His face (forgive the second commandment transgression) while executing unspeakably painful judgments upon those who have profaned His name and broken His law so egregiously. It is preposterous to speak of the heinousness of sin vis-à-vis God’s emotional (i.e., inward) immutability, as it essentially makes God look as if He does not care about sin. In other words, while many who affirm a strict or absolute impassibility may claim that they also do not want an impersonal god or a god who is “comfortably numb,” those descriptors do perfectly describe such a god. Love is inconceivable as a mere external action. In fact, Paul describes one of the most externally loving acts in the world, laying down one’s life, as being done in vain if not done with love (1 Cor. 13:3). How, then, can love be a merely volitional quality if it can be a completely different entity based on an internal aspect? This difference between Creator and creature in strict impassibility seems to be far too much and approaches deism.
Ben Maas
Ada, Ohio
[1] Indeed, a careful reading of the verse following Genesis 6:6 reveals that God’s inward response to the proliferation of human sin is not identical to his portended external response but is, rather, the basis for that external response: “So the LORD said, “I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth– men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air– for I am grieved that I have made them [emphasis added]” (6:7, NIV). Bob G.
[2] As I noted in Part 3, footnote 2, Jonathan Edwards argues, I think cogently, that emotions (or “affections” as he calls them) are in fact an aspect of the volitional faculty. See A Treatise on Religious Affections (1746; reprint, Banner of Truth, 1961), 24-27. Moreover, John Frame shows the connection between the mind and the emotions—emotive responses being intertwined with cognitive evaluations of events or states of affairs. The Doctrine of God (Presbyterian & Reformed, 2002), 509-12, 528-29, 608-11. Hence, we should not view the mind, will, and emotions as compartmentalized psychological faculties but as interrelated aspects or perspectival descriptions of what the Bible frequently calls “the heart.” Bob G.
[3] I don’t object to the use of the term “anthropopathic” in describing the Scriptures ascription of emotions to God provided that the term is used to indicate correspondence (not univocacy) with human emotivity and not used to construe divine and human emotivity as absolutely discorrespondent. Indeed, even in the case of “anthropomorphic” language, the emphasis is on correspondence not discorrespondence: “He who planted the ear, does he not hear? He who formed the eye, does he not see?” (Psalm 94:3, ESV). Bob G.
Posted by deangonzales on November 11, 2008
So, you’re discouraged and downcast about the outcome of the presidential election? You’d hoped for better. You’re concerned that we’ve taken a huge step backwards on such crucial morality issues like abortion, homosexuality, and stem cell research. You fear our nation is culturally slipping into a season of ethical darkness. You’re tempted to think that evil has somehow snuck up into the heavenly throne-room, seized, gagged, and bound God in a celestial corner, while unchecked wickedness will now trash history for a four-year term. You may feel the onset of spiritual depression.
Don’t go there. The children of God have every reason to rejoice in their Father’s undisturbed and sovereign reigning over the events of the November election. The Bible is clear. The decision was ultimately the LORD’s. “For not from the east, nor from the west, nor from the desert comes exaltation; but God is the Judge; He puts down one, and exalts another” (Psalm 75:6-7). We ought to hold to the deep conviction that Barack Obama is God’s man for the Whitehouse.
The carpenter holds his power drill. He’s finished with the drill bit for boring holes. He removes and puts down the boring bit, passes by the screw-driver bit, then selects and inserts the sanding bit. He has purposeful and important work to do. Likewise, the Lord has put down Bush/Cheney, passed by McCain/Palin, and exalted Obama/Biden. He has work to do.
Maybe the church in America needs a serious sanding down of unspiritual rough edges that have arisen over many years of pampering prosperity. Maybe God’s people need to be placed in the fire in order to get rid of a careless lukewarmness. Maybe the worsening of evil in American society will enable the gospel to grip with an even better traction.
Commenting on Romans 8:28, and the fact that God always “causes all things to work together for good to those who love God”, Octavius Winslow (Evening Thoughts) writes: “In God there is no evil, though at times it would appear He places Himself in an attitude of hostility toward believers, to stand in their path as with a drawn sword in His hand. . . Yet the darkest seasons of the church’s history have ever been those from which her brightest luster and shine has arisen, and those most threatening events have somehow conspired to the highest good and best welfare of the church.”
This is no time for God’s people to be depressed. The Carpenter from Nazareth is now at the Right Hand on High, and is busily building his church. “The LORD reigns; let the earth rejoice; Let the many islands be glad. . . Be glad in the LORD, you righteous ones; And give thanks to His holy name” (Psalm 97:1, 12).
Let’s go out into our Father’s garden every morning, with our hoes swung over our shoulders, joyously whistling the old sweet song, “This is my Father’s world, O let me ne’er forget, that though the wrong seems oft so strong, God is the ruler yet.”
Mark Chanski, Pastor
Reformed Baptist Church of Holland, Michigan
