Host of Wretched Radio (likely Todd Friel or a co-host) (44:13)
That's right. And he sang with Michael Jackson. Let's just move on, shall we? Did I mention this is Redshid Radio. I'm telling you, the world is watching. They definitely are watching the people that surround you in your hood. They're watching you because they know you're a Christian. They watch everything. They notice how you mow the lawn. They notice how you drive your car. They notice how you take care of your property. They notice how you interact with one another. They're watching you. And that is why we are to be royal priests set apart people peculiar to them, so that they ask about the hope that lies within us, especially when they go about the business of persecuting us and we don't respond in sinful ways. They want to know, all right, who. Who's your sa. That's what. That's what Kathy Ireland's testimony is about. Her mom met somebody at work who was just different, and she actually asked about the. What. What is it about you? And the woman was able to say, jesus, that should be encouraging to you. Love one another because the world is watching. Jimmy, I saw an interesting. It's. It's real. This is one of those debates that I think is on the healthier side of Tish Raiden theological table talk where we try to figure out the character and the nature of God. Sometimes I think those explorations can go to places that just aren't profitable. That it's like we're just kind of. We're in a realm that I'm not sure we should be in. Well, understanding emotions, I think is a worthwhile pursuit because I think that there are implications, for instance, to the people who would be strict impassibility people, meaning God doesn't have passions, meaning he doesn't have human emotions, period, the way that we do. I personally, I think that's problematic. My. The one. The primary reason for me, okay, primary or secondary, one of the two is that that would indicate that we actually possess something God doesn't. And that doesn't seem quite write to me that the creature has more than the Creator does. Furthermore, the Bible actually uses emotional descriptors of God. And I think the implications of denying that he actually has what I'll call feelings is massive. Does the Father have feelings toward the Son or does he just will to love the Son? You go, well, that does seem strange, doesn't it? And I affirm that I agree with that. Now said this, that I think that God's emotions, they are different than ours because we see a sunset, we go, oh, God doesn't see a sunset and react his emotions, if you will, they're predetermined. They're settled. They're always accurate and right. They do not experience the noetic effect of the fall. So God, I think, actually has emotions, but he's not emotional. He's not like a kid who needs a nap or somebody who gets hangry. He has emotions, but he's not emotional. He's not whiplash. He's not being whipped on the waves of feelings because of what is going on around him. Having said that, we do need to deal with what people would call anthropopathisms. Go ahead and say that after me. Anthropopathisms. You probably heard the word anthropomorphisms. These are words like under the wings of God, the shelter of his wings. Does God have wings? No, it's an anthropomorphism. It's using a description that we understand to get doesn't mean that God has wings. It means that he's protective, like a mother hen would be. He'd like somebody protecting his chicks. He doesn't actually. It's just a descriptor. Well, people would say that the words, for instance, grieving the Holy Spirit, God was angry. For instance, God is angry at the wicked every day. It doesn't mean that he has emotions. It's an anthropopathism to describe so that we can understand God's response to what I shouldn't say response, God's attitude toward what he is witnessing. I don't think that that argument can sustain itself. I know really good people who would say. In fact, I just saw a video, Kevin DeYoung. I don't know what conference it was. It was. Kevin DeYoung was on the panel and there were other Presbyterians there because Kevin's a Presbyterian and John Piper. And it appeared that the lead and I just saw a snippet of the clip that John Piper was saying, okay, when it comes to grieving the Holy Spirit is he actually grieved. And so he asked Kevin DeYoung, who did a treatment on anthropopathisms, and he explained, he talked about his understanding of the Impassibility doctrine. And I got to tell you once again, that dude is smart. Kevin DeYoung, I'm telling you, when. When you look at like, okay, who are. Who will be a big boy whose shoulders can handle some theological weight. I think a guy like Kevin DeYoung is one of those guys. It was evident he knows his stuff. He was speaking off the cuff, and he was. Most of it I just agreed with. But then when he came to the conclusion that an anthropopathism it allows them to remain consistent in their impassibility doctrine. John Piper and I wish that he had gone more. He kind of pressed in, so what is the relationship? And he was speaking about grieving the Holy Spirit. So if it's not grief, well, what is it? I understand with an anthropomorphism what it's trying to express, but what about an anthropopathism? What is it? What is. Okay, so the Holy Spirit, if he's not like grieved the way that we experience it, what is it trying to communicate to us if not a feeling? And that's where the clip ended, which was a bummer. Now the implications for this, and remember, you don't want to have the implications inform your understanding of the impassibility doctrine or anthropopathisms. That would be to reason backwards biblically, the implications flow out of what the text actually says. So I want to make sure that we don't put the cart before the horse in this. But I do believe there are really big implications to the understanding of emotions and affections. Because if God doesn't experience any affections, any emotions the way that at least that we understand them, then our relationship with him is far more transactional than it is relational. And when I read the Bible I see relationship all the time. Sorry. One Peter, he calls us obedient children. Children. And the title that Peter uses for God regularly is Father. Those are familial terms, those are relational terms, those are affectionate terms. And if we understand that God is just more. I don't want to put this in a way that would seem like I'm taking a cheap shot at those who affirm a really strict impassibility view. But if God doesn't feel anything, then our relationship with him is. It's not what I see. Romans 5:1 presenting that we are brought into a relationship. The doctrine of adoption I think would be compromised and undermined because, well, it would be, well, I'm going to let the kid live in the house, I'm going to provide for the kids needs, but I have no feeling I'm going to do good things for the kid. But no feelings. And you go, well that doesn't Hoofta. That's right, I said hoofta. That just doesn't feel real good. Now remember, that's an implication, that's not an argument. Nevertheless, I think it's big. Furthermore, because we are supposed to love one another and there are about five or six instances where phileo is used to describe our love for one another. So we should have brotherly affection. In fact, I think it's 1 Peter 2:22 since you've been born again. He actually uses an Old Testament phrase based on Exodus 19:10, but it's an Old Testament phrase. Since you've washed, you've purified yourself. It's just using Old Testament language to talk about New Testament inner purification. Through hearing the Gospel you have phileo for one another. In other words, when you're born again, you love the brethren. Warm, friendly, familiar. Romans 14 talks about phileoing one another. But then we're also supposed to agape one another. We are supposed to show our love in action. And as I think current scholarship, Thomas Schreiner, Andreas Kestenberger and every Puritan incidentally talked about even though their doctrine of impassibility, they talked about warm affections with God, that it isn't something that is just chilly and transactional, it is something that is familial and it is warm and it is deep and it is rich and it is what motivates us then to be holy. Now we have to remember God's warm love for us isn't because we're so squishy lovable. Why does he love us so? And the answer is clear because it is repeated about 30 times in the New Testament. It is because we are in Christ. We are in union with Christ. And the love that the Father has for the Son, he now has for us, not because we're lovable, but because. Because he loves the sun. And until tomorrow go serve your King.