If your definition of static in this case includes unchanging, changeless, that's exactly what it means. I think you are confusing this with the immaterial energies of the Holy Trinity or Godhead.
Perhaps I chose the wrong word. What I meant was mono-dimensional, mono-faceted, "simple" vs. complex, etc. IOW, if God can fully encompass being fully man and fully God at the same time, then why can't He be fully love, fully just, and fully wrathful at the same time? If I am understanding the Apostolic position correctly then if God is only love then He CANNOT also (ever) be angry or wrathful. Why is this? I do not see how the ABILITY to have righteous anger and wrath is inconsistent with the ABILITY to love. They are not inconsistent, God is a complete being and is multifaceted.
God is changelessly experiencing the emotions of love and hate? This is internally inconsistent.
Why? Can you love your wife and at the same time have righteous anger toward any unworthy clergyman? Did you change something if you felt both at the same time? I don't think so. Since righteous anger is no sin, why can't God do that too?
If God hates something today and loves something tomorrow it violates immutability, so you postulate an unchanging infinite immaterial ball of conflicting emotions. Turn the microscope around.
No, this isn't what I said. :) I said if God hates thing "A" today, but then loves thing "A" tomorrow THEN it violates immutability. It has to be the same thing. That God ALWAYS loves good work "B" and ALWAYS hates sin "C" does NOT violate immutability. No conflicting emotions here. He is consistent.
FK: "Well, for example on the one hand there is a grounded, sobering love, and on the other is a self-destructive, obsessive "love"."
This isn't love or isn't a fault of loving. We confuse many things for love. God's love through us is not an emotion; but this is another topic...
I agree with the first part. But also, God doesn't have human emotional failings; however, how can it be said that He does not have emotions? Did God create us in His image with something (a good something) He Himself does not possess? Godly human love is an emotion, and He says He wants it from us. Surely this cannot be out of envy? :)
FK: "There is anger that causes rash and unwise, impulsive decisions, and there is righteous anger."
"Anyone who is angry with his brother.."
Is this a denial of righteous anger? Consider these:
Mark 3:4-5 : 4 Then Jesus asked them, "Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?" But they remained silent. 5 He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored.
Titus 1:7 : 7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not self willed, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; ... KJV [This allows for righteous anger, or the "soon" would have been unnecessary and misleading.]
Eph 4:25-27 : 25 Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another. 26 Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath: 27 Neither give place to the devil. KJV
Paul explains nicely exactly what Jesus did. He was angry but did not sin. If that is possible, then righteous anger must exist.
FK: "I just meant that with all the emotions, God always correctly shows them."
Perfect anger, lust, pride, envy... :)
In a sense, "Yes". :) Now, I think it is correct that all core emotions can be used by humans for evil, but can all also be used for good? I think so. But here there is a problem. How many separate emotions are there and what are their names? I sure don't know. Are lust, sinful pride and envy really separate emotions or are they all simply bastardizations of the core emotion love? I think more likely the latter, as God does not show these. But anger God DOES show, so I consider that a separate emotion.
I honestly can't think of Biblical uses of lust or envy in a good way, but of course there is plenty on pride:
2 Cor 5:12 : 12 We are not trying to commend ourselves to you again, but are giving you an opportunity to take pride in us, so that you can answer those who take pride in what is seen rather than in what is in the heart.
2 Cor 7:4 : I have great confidence in you; I take great pride in you. I am greatly encouraged; in all our troubles my joy knows no bounds.
2 Cor 8:24 : Therefore show these men the proof of your love and the reason for our pride in you, so that the churches can see it.
I "think" that pride, lust, and envy are all included with the "7 deadly sins", but obviously it cannot be in all cases, if Paul's inspired word is correct. Don't get me wrong, I'm not looking for loopholes or anything. :) I'm just saying that human failings in the emotional realm cannot be projected onto God, such that it is therefore impossible for Him to have emotions.
FK: "We humans misuse our emotions all the time."
We misuse our God-given instincts. Emotions are instinctual states. Applying animal instincts to God leads us to strange theology.
I'm not sure what this means? Does it mean that emotions themselves do not really exist for anyone because they are instinctual states? I haven't heard this contrast before. Doesn't instinct just mean to follow one's nature? If so, doesn't God have a nature?
Thank you also for your replies. I enjoy our discussions.
What I meant was mono-dimensional, mono-faceted, "simple" vs. complex, etc. IOW, if God can fully encompass being fully man and fully God at the same time, then why can't He be fully love, fully just, and fully wrathful at the same time?
mono-dimensional
I'm assuming that you're obviously not referring to spatial dimensions, but past that it can have many meanings. If you mean having more than one attribute: Of course. If you mean a different state or personality: No.
mono-faceted
Same as above, with the caveat that God does not have 'parts' if you look at facets this way.
"simple" vs. complex
Is God complex? Yet another confusing term if used theologically, it's more at home in psychology.
If you mean, again, capable of being described using more than one attribute: Yes. If you're veering off into parts: No. We say God is simple and uncompound. Not divisible into elements.
You seem to be struggling here to find a way to describe God having (conflicting) emotions. Otherwise, you could just say 'we can describe God somewhat - using more than one attribute. And be done with it. The struggle is to attribute human emotions and change and still maintain immutability and perfection. It can't be done, hence the futile search for more and better phrases.
if God can fully encompass being fully man and fully God at the same time, then why can't He be fully love, fully just, and fully wrathful at the same time?
I think you'll recognize this as non sequitur, counselor. Also bear in mind we are talking about the Holy Trinity here and the Divine in essence. Your question is leading toward: If Jesus had a human nature and a divine nature, why can't the divine nature be like human nature? How can one answer other than: Because it's not, else they'd be the same.
So where comes this human understanding of God's anger, etc.? St. John Damascene helps explain again:
Many of the things relating to God, therefore, that are dimly understood cannot be put into fitting terms, but on things above us we cannot do else than express ourselves according to our limited capacity; as, for instance, when we speak of God we use the terms sleep, and wrath, and regardlessness, hands, too, and feet, land such like expressions.
Can you love your wife and at the same time have righteous anger toward any unworthy clergyman?
Can you? Try it. Put yourself in the place where the emotion of love toward your wife arises. Then do the same for anger. Now love, now be angry. Now be love/angry. Now call your mental health professional.
Emotions are a state of mind - even persons with multiple personalities have one at a time.
Does it mean that emotions themselves do not really exist for anyone because they are instinctual states? I haven't heard this contrast before. Doesn't instinct just mean to follow one's nature? If so, doesn't God have a nature?
No emotions exist. They occur instinctually as opposed to being controlled by will or reason. They are part of our God-given instincts, and directing them properly towards the divine goes hand in hand with proper use of our instincts. They can be used as guides for spiritual development - sometimes in the negative, more effectively in the positive.
Instincts are innate behaviour patterns, having effect based on internal and external stimuli. Survival, reproduction are the two primary ones. Our instincts are behavioural patterns to survive and reproduce... in other words.
You can see here that ascribing this use of "instincts" to God is nonsensical. Having a divine nature, or any nature for that matter, does not necessarily require either instincts or passions.
thanks for your reply.
I wrote confusingly:
“No emotions exist.” should be “No, emotions exist.” (Emotions do exist.)