Calvin in the Institutes:-
...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. (I.xvii.13)
Huge hermeneutical implications here... I know what he is trying to protect, but does he make Scripture almost deceitful? Of course, when we speak of God we need to qualify the application of human language to him... but is this accomodation gone too far?
6 comments:
Crikey, he sounds like a liberal! There is all the difference in the world between saying "God's anger is not like ours in that he is in full control of himself and does not lose his temper or overreact" and saying "he is not really angry".
At the same time it is helpful to remember the public character of God's anger: that is, he is not merely angry at personal injury but because he is the upholder of cosmic order and is angry at those who damage it (the Grotian defense of penal substitution).
However, I am not sure that this is all there is to the wrath of God. Surely a vital biblical aspect of it is that God is personally and directly affronted by sin and that he is the one who is wronged by sin.
I think this is yet another example of how the Platonic view of an emotionless God is at odds with the biblical view of God (the main other example being the denial that God suffers).
The idea of Holiness helps too, as Webster outlines in his book... hmm.
Interestingly I read the same quote just a few days ago... my thought (in addition to those above) was how that tied in with his doctrine of atonement. This was also due to reading a quote by him explaining how the command of OT sacrifice was accommodating to the culture.
I remember hearing by Carl Trueman in a lecture (I haven't properly read Calvin for too long to know myself) that Calvin believed (in common with many other theologians throughout history) that there was nothing within God's nature that demanded the sacrifice of Christ.... I wonder...
I have to agree with your point.
nothing within God's nature? hmm... Anselm might dispute that...
If he doesn't get angry, does he really love?
I'm not so sure I buy the changeless atemporal eternity of God either - at least not in any straightforward way (if there is such a thing). Isn't this another philosophical hangover from Greek conceptions of time and eternity? Isn't 'faithfulness', rather than 'changelessness' a more biblical category?
Well now: Milbank wants to argue that those hangovers are actually embedded in the NT Byron! So, not so fast!
BUT: yes, I think God is self-consistness, ie he is marked by his hesed = steadfast love...
Miroslav Volf has a good deal of interesting stuff to say about God's anger, too...
Post a Comment