Those who say emotions should be added give emotions the controlling position

"The quotations the complainants offer in their protest to prove their contention are very unconvincing. In fact, they frankly admit

From the viewpoint of abstract psychology, it is perfectly true that Reformed theologians have not been in complete agreement as to the number and names of the faculties of the human soul. In speaking specifically of the faculties of the human soul, Calvin mentions by name only the intellect and will (Institutes, Bk. I, Chap. XV, Sect. 6). Augustine refers to the perception, understanding, and will [The Text of a Complaint, 8].

And again, they admit: 'Calvin, who so clearly gives intellect a control over will, though not by virtue of that a primacy over will,' etc. (9). But they insist that 'the more recent theologians, however, seem to agree in large measure on the threefold distinction of intellect, emotions, and will' (8).
We may note here that the complainants express themselves very carefully: 'the more recent theologians seem to agree in large measure.' But even so the complainants are in error. It is far nearer to the truth to state that Reformed theologians have, generally speaking, been strongly opposed to the threefold distinction of intellect, will, and emotions, and have often expressed their fear of the danger of this distinction. The danger of this distinction, to which they usually pointed, is that the emotions in that case gradually assume a dominating and controlling position in the soul of man, and that, according to this trichotomous psychology, such experiences as love and hatred, sorrow and joy, repentance and remorse, in fact, all religion and morality are relegated to the emotions or feeling. And that would exactly be the deathblow to all true religion. Reformed theologians were, therefore, usually in favor of the dichotomous distinction of intellect and will, and ascribed the emotions partly to the intellect, and partly to the will. And again, it may be stated without fear of possible contradiction that Reformed theology usually favored the 'primacy of the intellect.'
I thought, and still think, that this was so well known that I could only be amazed when I discovered that some theologians of Philadelphia took the opposite stand." -Herman Hoeksema, The Clark-Van Til Controversy, Pg. 30 - 31