 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
exborg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 9
| Posted 4/20/2003 6:16 AM (GMT -6) |   | Hello, I'm exborg. Ex or X will work too. I'm new here. I've watched discussions here for a few months now but just signed up. Seems like an interesting place to talk and discuss theological views.
I have lots of questions. I do believe in God and I like to talk with friends about faith related stuff, but I don't do so well when it coems to defending things and the reasons why I believe. Anyhow, I would like to begin by asking for some help in defining God. I have a few friends and we like to talk about spiritual things. One of my friends asked---So define God? What's you defintion of God?
Wow, I thought. How do I go about doing that?
Is there a "defintion" of God in the Bible? Can God be defined?
Thank you.
X
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Boyoms
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 4
| Posted 4/20/2003 8:39 AM (GMT -6) | | Check this page out: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/101311.htm
It is written by Thomas Aquinas, a medieval Christian theologian. It is written in the form of a debate, first giving reasons why God shouldnt have a certain name, then his responses. It might not be exactly what you want because it is talking about God's name rather than a definition, but it should give you something to chew on.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 4/20/2003 12:26 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey there X,
God is the Supreme Being of all reality; eternal and infinite Spirit, Creator, and Sovereign of the universe; Jehovah.
God is a Spirit; and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. John 4:24
God is perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness…
In-originate as PoW might say, or the uncaused cause as many might agree.
PoW: …the Son is "begotten of the Father. ONLY the Father is 'in-originate' -- not 'from' another person.
Who (The Son of God) being the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty (God the Father) on high; Hbr 1:3
The words 'God is' occur in 918 verses in the KJV, including 59 exact phrase matches shown first, such as:
Mat 3:9 God is able
Luk 16:16 God is preached
Luk 17:21 God is within you.
Jhn 3:33 God is true.
Gal 3:20 God is one.
1Jo 4:8 God is love.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/1050876803-1584.html
God is Love,
Tim
2Ti 2:19…Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity... | | Back to Top | | |
|
exborg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 9
| Posted 4/21/2003 11:20 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey, thanks for the help.
As I thought about the question “What’s your definition of God?” something didn’t fit. We don’t use that sort of question about other people. We don’t ask somebody to “define Bob” or “define your Mother.” We say, what sort of person is your Mother? What sort of things does she like and dislike? What are her hobbies? Or we might ask about her history; where was she raised, what sort of experiences have shaped her into being who she is right now. I prefer to approach defining God this way. Not “define God,” but, What’s God like? What’s God like to do? What things upset or offend him? We don’t say, “Define Bob,” but we do ask, “Who is Bob?” meaning what’s his history, what’s Bob do for a living, who does Bob hang out with? You know.
Our histories shape us into who we are. Do God’s experiences have any kind of influence on him? Or is he just one sort of unchanging person?
It just seems that our answer to the request for a “definition” of God more than often comes out sounding clinical and uninviting. I wondered if the question “What’s your definition of God?” doesn’t assume the person asking it thinks God is less than a person, that he’s some kind of impersonal force field or something. I don’t know how to describe it.
I mean, what are we really after when we try to “define God”? Usually when we try to “define” something (like a word or a concept) it’s because we want to use the information to do something. We USE information. “Defining” is never an end in itself. Am I making sense? I wonder why people ask to know who and what God is? Nobody just wants to know. We want to know what to DO with the information. Maybe what we want to DO with the answer determines whether we find the answer.
I like the verses posted. They help. But it doesn’t look to me like the Bible anywhere just comes out and “defines” God. It’s like little snap shots of God during his work day; here’s God at work (snap), or here’s God at play (snap), and here’s God destroying his enemies (snap), etc. What do we do with all these snapshots?
exborg
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/22/2003 5:34 AM (GMT -6) | | INFINITE and INEFFABLE
"God is closer to you than you are to you,
but He is, more than anything,
further away in majesty, and glory.
We will never know Him in His essence,
but in His encounter,
we know Him more than any friend."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/22/2003 6:40 AM (GMT -6) | | If you are someone who liked Martin Buber's "I & Thou"[i/] then you will probably like this too:
| | Back to Top | | |
|
exborg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 9
| Posted 4/25/2003 6:27 AM (GMT -6) | | OK, so I'm hearing different things here. Not sure I got it right, but Potonwheel seems to say we don't know God, but we do. Or we do know him in hs 'encounter' but not in his 'essence.' Does the Bible anywhere use these words to talk about God? Not sure where that leaves me in understanding him.
But some of you list verses that say, God is this or God is that and seem to understand it pretty much for what it says. Or don't you.
Sorry to be so slow at this stuff.
I guess I was looking for something short and easy to understand. Like if you had just a minute or two on a bus to answer somebody who asked you something like -- 'So what is God to you? Who do you think God is?" Do I say we know him but don't know him? Or just quote some verses? This seems, like I said before, clinical or impersonal. Is there a definition of God somebody out there uses that would make a person who hears it want to be interested in getting to know God?
exborg
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 4/25/2003 8:49 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey X-
Welcome to the site, and to the Journey. So, you wanna define God. Wow.
The fact that you’re looking for a user-friendly pocket definition you can give people you meet on a bus makes it easier for them, but it makes it harder for you. Behind every well-constructed easy-to-understand definition is a good understanding of the not-so-easy-to-understand version and a lot of hard work put into boiling it down. Hope you hang out here for a while, because there is a lot of material you can read through the search machine and always a few good discussions going on you can jump into.
There are a couple of related issues that you’ll eventually have to face and deal with even if you never conquer them (I’m light years away). They attach themselves to your subject (understanding and defining God) like remoras on a shark. They’re just always there. Two such issues come to mind:
1) The distinction between God’s essence and his attributes. Man have we beat this horse silly! There’s so much of this stuff buried in different theads. Wouldn’t know where to steer you. God’s essence, his nature or substance, that is, what he’s “made of” (for lake of a better expression) is not directly knowable by us. We don’t have access to it. We can’t see God from the inside out. Only God can know his own essence in this sense. This is what PoW is referring to and about which you seemed to be wondering.
We can only know anything about God if God freely decides to reveal himself to us through his attributes. These we can see and experience—God’s love, purity, power, goodness, faithfulness, wrath, mercy, compassion, etc. Because we are absolutely dependent upon God to tell us who he is and what he’s like, God’s self-revelation has to be our starting point. We have no other choice. What does God say to us? How does God act? What does he command? What does he reward? What does he punish? What’s God like? To speak of these things (which is all we can speak of) is to speak of God-revealed-to-us, or God’s attributes. Make sense?
2) The other issue that casts its shadow over your defining God regards just what we’re supposed to do with this distinction between God’s essence (which we don’t have direct access to) and God’s attributes which are revealed to us? Is God’s essence revealed in his attributes? In what sense, if at all, does God’s “self-revelation” point truthfully to what God is in his essence? This may seem like nitpicking, but you’ll find out how important it is.
When we say, for example, that “God is love,” do we mean that love is what God IS (in his nature or essence)? Or do we only mean that the attribute of love describes only God-revealed, in which case “God is love” means “God is acting now in manner WE understand as loving,” not necessarily that God is by nature love. (I’m explaining it poorly.)
This is an important point. If there is no connection between God’s revealed attributes and God’s essence, then can we really call God’s revelation a “revelation” at all? I think not.
Here’s the rub. You don’t wanna “reduce” God to YOUR understanding, right? But if it’s true that we have real knowledge of God’s nature via his attributes, then what’s left of God’s transcendence (you know, the idea that God is way beyond anything we can think, say, or imagine)? If God is by nature loving, truthful, merciful, good, etc., then what’s left for us NOT to know? There has to be something of God we don’t’ know, right? If God IS what he reveals, then haven’t we boxed God up and contained him? For God to remain God above and beyond us, shouldn’t we say that while God is love he is also other than love (in some mysterious way we don’t understand)? Or that while God is good he is also other than good (in some mysterious, transcendent way)?
Spend some time thinking about this stuff. There are other fun issues that attach to your question about who God is. I don’t have many answers, but here are three principles that I use to navigate the mystery:- God is truly revealed in his attributes. His attributes really do point to God. Otherwise there’s no “revelation.”
- God transcends his revelation, meaning God is more than what’s revealed.
- Though God may be more than what is revealed, he is never less than or contrary to what is revealed.
In other words:- Imminence tells me God is defined by his revealed attributes: God is really here.
- Transcendence tells me God is not exhaustively confined to his revealed attributes: God is also not here.
See the tension? The challenge is to understanding how to relate what we DO know of God through God’s revelation (through all the verses that describe God) to the unrevealed transcendent God we DON’T have direct access to. More specifically, some believe that the unrevealed transcendent God is mysteriously the opposite of what is revealed and known. What some theologians take transcendence to mean is that all truths about God MUST resolve into antinomy or paradox, that unless we in some way affirm the opposite of our beliefs (about God’s sovereignty, our freedom, or divine-human relations) we’re making God too human and limiting God to our understanding. In the end, there HAS to exist a corresponding contradictory truth to everything we know about God through his revelation or else God is not transcendent. But in my opinion this is just foolish. A “self”-revelation is an “essence”-revelation. Yes, it’s true that we don’t have direct access to God’s essence, but this is not a unique problem we face in relating to God. It’s true of everybody we know. I don’t have direct access to my wife’s essence. I only know her through her attributes. Even we, in our essence, transcend what we reveal about ourselves, but we do not for this reason suppose others do not know US for who we truly are.
So, before you go to sleep on me here, let me list what appear to me to be some of the defining attributes of God. I’m no theologian, mind ya, so arrange this however it helps you best.
There are some short, to the point, statements in the Bible that help. Some have already been mentioned. In no special order:- Jn 4.24: “God is spirit…”
- Jn 3.33: “…God is true [the adjective “aleitheis”: true, truthful; real, genuine].”
- 1Jn 1.5: “…God is light and in him is no darkness at all.”
- 1Jn 4.8: “…God is love.”
- Gal 3.20: “…God is one.”
- Rm 1.20: “Ever since the creation of the world God’s invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.”
- Hb 11.3: “…the world was created by the word of God…what is seen was made out of things which do not appear.”
- Hb 11.6: “For whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.
There are tons more. From these and others, here are the building blocks of my understanding of God (again, in no special order):- God is Spirit (i.e., immaterial)
- God is Self-existent (i.e., self-sufficient; this is God’s aseity)
- God is a necessary being (as opposed to a contingent being)
- God is One
- God is Triune (Father, Son, and Spirit)
- God is Creator of all things
- God is Sustainer of all things
- God is Sovereign over all things
- God is Revealer (God reveals himself to us)
- God is Savior (compassion, mercy, grace)
- God is Judge (righteous, just)
- God is All-loving (i.e., omnibenevolent, that is, God is Love)
- God is All-knowing (i.e., omniscient)
- God is All-powerful (i.e., omnipotent)
- God is everywhere present (i.e., omnipresent)
- God is Free (i.e., God never acts under compulsion; neither is God ever required by anything outside himself to do anything; his actions are always free; any covenant that binds his actions are freely chosen self-limitations)
- God is Person (or personal; God is not an impersonal ‘substance’ or ‘force.’ You can check out the thread where we discussed this here: http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1817&whichpage=1&ARCHIVE=; I think the concept of “person” or “personhood” provides the central focus for theological reflection regarding God and the highest category under which we can conceive of him.)
- God is Immanent (which we might have included under omnipresent)
- God is Transcendent (i.e., God is more than he reveals himself to be; God is not exhaustively revealed in what he says or does)
Toss it all together and throw in some vinaigrette:God is the self-existent, triune Creator and Sustainer of all things; the all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful, all-sovereign, everywhere-present, and supremely personal Creator, Savior and Judge of all, incarnate personally and supremely in the person of Jesus Christ. That’s not exactly what I’d spit out to somebody on a bus! But I’d pick part of it and toss it out there for a response.
Have fun!
Tom 
Edited by - TGB on 04/25/2003 3:06:44 PM
Edited by - TGB on 04/25/2003 3:08:13 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 4/25/2003 9:20 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
What some theologians take transcendence to mean is that all truths about God MUST resolve into antinomy or paradox, that unless we in some way affirm the opposite of our beliefs (about God’s sovereignty, our freedom, or divine-human relations) we’re making God too human and limiting God to our understanding. In the end, there HAS to exist a corresponding contradictory truth to everything we know about God through his revelation or else God is not transcendent. But in my opinion this is just foolish.
Tom, my sentiments exactly!
Ross
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. - C.S. Lewis | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/25/2003 11:21 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/25/2003 11:44 AM (GMT -6) | | Dear exborg,
I think that Tom's language choice is pretty much what you are looking for. I like how he said this:
quote:
Here’s the rub. You don’t wanna “reduce” God to YOUR understanding, right?
That's more useful than a quote I ran across today:
quote:
God cannot be made an object; consequently he is radically interior. “God is the more invisible the more his burning intimacy radiates in man’s spirit.” (St. Symeon)
See, Tom's your man.
Evdokimov says this, continuing on a quote from Symeon:
quote:
Tradition rapidly eliminated all imagination, all mystic intoxication with suffering, and imposed the greatest sobriety. Even ecstasy was held suspect. “When it seems to you that your spirit is drawn toward the heights by an invisible force, do not put any faith in it, but oblige yourself to work. By work a monk avoids all romantic abstraction and exercises charity. Very often one thinks that it is a spiritual joy, and it is only sensuality aroused by the enemy; those who have had this experience can distinguish it,” teaches Gregory the Sinaite.108 Evagrius said, “Do not desire to see either evil powers or angels under pain of sinking into madness.”109
Note (and Tom can say this in just a few words!!!) that "exercise of charity" (practicing the FRUIT OF THE SPIRIT) is the way to KNOW GOD. Not mysticism, Not intoxication, Not ecstasy, Not romantic abstraction, Not sensuality aroused . . . that leads to knowledge of God.
Tom can provide a really good bible verse for this!
Tom went on with one other topic too. He thought that he and I disagreed. I actually disagreed''and he and I had talked past each other (that's the horse beaten silly he spoke of). But what He said is true -- or so I think.:
quote:
The challenge is to understanding how to relate what we DO know of God through God’s revelation (through all the verses that describe God) to the unrevealed transcendent God we DON’T have direct access to. More specifically, some believe that the unrevealed transcendent God is mysteriously the opposite of what is revealed and known. What some theologians take transcendence to mean is that all truths about God MUST resolve into antinomy or paradox, that unless we in some way affirm the opposite of our beliefs (about God’s sovereignty, our freedom, or divine-human relations) we’re making God too human and limiting God to our understanding. In the end, there HAS to exist a corresponding contradictory truth to everything we know about God through his revelation or else God is not transcendent. But in my opinion this is just foolish. A “self”-revelation is an “essence”-revelation. Yes, it’s true that we don’t have direct access to God’s essence, but this is not a unique problem we face in relating to God. It’s true of everybody we know.
Where we may or may not separate is if he (Tom) were to say that there are no limits on what we can know of God. I'm sticking with the QUOTE (not my words) that I had posted.
Tom did we right with his answer.
Ask him more questions.
PoW
======================
Oh, I want to say whay I like this quote. (“God is the more invisible the more his burning intimacy radiates in man’s spirit.”) I think that this is true. And I think that what this says is that we can, while getting "closer" to God also discover how "big" God is, and come to understand palpably how while we have drawn-closer our increased perception of God shows us to be farther away than we had earlier realized. I remember older Christians in my church growing up remarking on this. I'm getting older myself now too.
(o)
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 04/25/2003 4:49:05 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/25/2003 11:47 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom, Evdokimov wraps up what I quoted above with this (thought of you):
quote:
"The final logic of all revelation is evidence. The God of the Bible is before all else self-evident."
Knew you'd like it. Fits with your "non-contradiction..."
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/25/2003 11:51 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
...according to Nicolas Cabasilas, the incarnation is the “pouring of God outside himself”. (Paul Evdokimov)
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 4/25/2003 11:53 AM (GMT -6) | | And Tom says he's no theologin.
Dude, you da man!
(I'm still learning, by your pots, what it means to write clearly!)
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 4/25/2003 4:20 PM (GMT -6) | | What am I truly seeking in defining God for someone else? I am sharing the most valuable of all ‘information’ available; the most precious thing a person could ever receive exborg.
God is the knowledge of all things!
Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Jam 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all [men] liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
Upbraid means to charge with something wrong or disgraceful; reprove with severity; treat with contempt.
Use this information to do something for others , because I understand it pretty much for what it says.
God is Love,
Tim
2Ti 2:19…Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity... | | Back to Top | | |
|
exborg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 9
| Posted 4/26/2003 5:37 AM (GMT -6) | | Thanks again! I think I follow the difference between “essence” and “attributes.” Some of the technical terms are new, but I get the point.
I was thinking again about something I asked before too. About ‘why’ people want to define God. I thought that our motivation for wanting to understand God correctly had a lot to do with whether or not we found the truth about God, or whether we would even notice the truth if we met it. It’s like the search of truth is an ethical thing. In the Bible God says he is with the meek and humble, that he reveals himself to such people but hides the truth from the wicked and proud.
So, my question is: Is it a good idea to first ask people WHY they want to know my definition of God, or WHY they are interested in knowing the truth about God (if he exists)? It’s like Jesus in the gospels. He always had time for people who were honestly looking for the truth, but when he could tell that somebody was only interested in trapping him, or arguing for arguments sake, he usually didn’t give them the time of day. He usually blasted them, not that I want to blast people. But I think maybe I’ll invest less time with people if the reason they’re interested in knowing the truth is not honest.
For instance, I have a good friend (middle-aged guy) who graduated with a masters in religion and philosophy. He’s not married, but he dates two different women at the same time, is intimate with both, yet neither lady knows about the other. He admits this is two-faced of him, but yet continues on, refusing to reconcile himself and life with integrity. We talk about God often. He used to be a believer but abandoned his faith while studying at university. He’s still “searching” for the truth.
Now, in my mind, his failure to find the truth has is not an academic or logical problem. I think it’s ethical. Are people who refuse to be honest with themselves and others really prepared to deal with the greater question of God.
Second, wouldn’t the right motivation behind wanting to know the truth about God determine whether or not God let’s himself be known by us?
Last, then, I like your ‘defining attributes’ TGB. But if I boiled these all down I’d prefer to word it a little simpler, using ‘verbs.’ Know what I mean? Like, I’d take your definition…quote:
God is the self-existent, triune Creator and Sustainer of all things; the all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful, all-sovereign, everywhere-present, and supremely personal Creator, Savior and Judge of all, incarnate personally and supremely in the person of Jesus Christ.
…and do this to it:
“God has always existed. His existence doesn’t depend on anything or anybody other than himself. He created the whole universe and is the one who keeps it running. He knows absolutely everything about us, loves us more than we’ll ever understand, and can meet every need we have. God is everywhere approachable and always available. No definition of God is complete because God is a ‘person’ and it no ‘words’ can express the person, so if you really want to know what God is like, examine Jesus.”
Is this too street-level? Not theological enough?
exborg
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 4/26/2003 6:45 PM (GMT -6) | | exborg defines omnipresence as: "God is always and everywhere approachable and available."
There are some definite advantages in aiming for the STREET! Good stuff! And plenty theological enough for me. Nice.
I really liked your point about the search for truth requing honesty, humility, and integrity. THere's something to that. And I wouldn't at all think it a bad idea to ask people WHY they are asking if there is a God and if there is one, what sort of God he is.
Other parts of your definition were nice too: "God has always existed" for "eternal," and "his existence doesn't depend on anyone or anything else" for "self-existent/self-sufficient."
And telling people up front that no definition is perfect since you can't reduce a "person" down to "words." Ooooo, I like that. Look at Jesus! Isn't that what Jesus said. When Thomas asked JEsus to see the Father (so that the Father could be DEFINED!), Jesus said, "If you've seen me, you've seen the Father," and so "If you've understood and defined what sort of person I am, you've understood and defined what sort of person God is." So, until people enounter God personally, they haven't really defined him. Hmmm.
I notice that you (like most, me included) use "he" and "him" for God. I'm only mentioning this because we're talking about language used to define, or describe God. I sometimes use "she" and "her" when speaking of GOd because a) GOd is niether male nor female, b) women have been shut out of theological discussions for a looooog time, and c) since men and women are different, they expereince the world and God differently and have something unique to say about God. I use "he' and "him" cause most do. It's just easier. But I don't mind using female pronouns to remind myself that God isn't a guy and that we men don't have any advantage over a woman in understanding God.
Tom
Edited by - TGB on 04/26/2003 11:57:44 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 4/27/2003 2:38 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Tom,
Rather than seeing God as neither male nor female, I see Him (God) like Adam was before Eve was removed from him, both, in the form of a male, for what it’s worth in our ‘Definition of God’.
God is Love,
Tim
2Ti 2:19…Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity... | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 4/27/2003 6:44 AM (GMT -6) | | exborg-
I was reading one of my favorite books again today: Vincent Brummer’s Speaking of a Personal God: An Essay In Philosophical Theology. It sounds scarier than it is. Actually, I get lost reading most stuff on philosophy, but I can follow this one. I wanna share a quote from it that I think has something to do with your interest in how to go about defining, or understanding God, and especially with your comment about how our life, or our willingness to live honestly with the truth, affects whether or not we ever find the truth.
Brummer makes an important point too about our dependence upon God’s taking the initiative to reveal himself and about understanding the limitations of our God-talk (our descriptions and definitions of God). I think you’ll like it. The italics are Brummer’s but the bold is mine:
quote:
“…the personal concepts which are used in the Bible with respect to God primarily express the attitude or disposition that we are to adopt in relation to God. The description of God’s factual nature or character is derived from this: God’s factual characteristics are only known to us (and relevant from a religious point of view) to the extent that they are constitutive assumptions for the way of life that we are to adopt in relation to God. The question of God’s factual nature is therefore never an existentially neutral question which we can disconnect from the question about the way of life which we are to lead in the presence of God. The questions which believers ask about God’s factual nature are never asked out of mere curiosity in the way in which they might out of curiosity ask questions about the factual nature of the world around them. As we have suggested…we are able to know God adequately from his revelation. From God’s revelation we can come to know both how we should act in relation to God and how we should act coram Deo in relation to the world and each other. We can know no more about God’s factual nature than what is necessary as the constitutive assumption for such a life coram Deo. For believers this is sufficient.” (coram Deo just means “in the presence of God”)
This might be understood as arguing that we are to “pretend God is whatever we think our life requires him to be.” Close, but not quite. It does shift the question from “God’s factual nature” (that is, from defining God as God, period) to the “factual requirements of life lived as God designed and commands” in relation to him. See the difference? Brummer relocates the focus, or starting point, of our defining God, but this is both right and helpful I think, for two reasons:
1) We have a far better understanding of God’s design for the world, his purposes for us, and what he commands for our relating to him than we do of God’s essence (his “factual nature”). God actually spells the former out for us. He tells us to believe he exists, to walk humbly, to repent, to love him with all our mind, soul, strength, etc., to worship him alone, to love our neighbor as ourselves, to present our requests to him, to proclaim him to the world, etc. THIS we can understand. THIS is in our grasp.
2) It’s more than presumptuous, or mere pretending on our part, then, to reason that God is by nature what our relating to one another as God purposed logically requires God to be. In other words, though we cannot have direct access to God’s essence (that is, though we cannot by-pass revelation which necessarily comes to us in terms we finite humans can understand), I think we can correctly reason that:a) If God designs us for mutual divine-human relationship A, and
b) If this relationship requires B of us, and
c) If our fulfilling B logically entails that God be by nature C, then it follows that,
d) God is by nature C. Before we can say that “God is in his essence, or by nature ____ ,” we still have to a) correctly understand what God’s designs and intentions for us are in relationship to him, and b) correctly understand what our fulfilling these intentions logically implies for God. But this is easier to do that just starting with reason on our own (as natural theology does). At least here we DO start with God’s revelation.
Is this making any sense? I’m just tossing it out as food for thought.
Tom
Edited by - TGB on 04/27/2003 11:48:50 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 4/27/2003 8:09 AM (GMT -6) | | Tim-
God "in the form of a male"?
Hmmm. I do think that humankind as male and female both together reflect the image of God and that men and women through their created differences each contribute something unique to this reflection. Is that what you mean? Or do you mean God has BOTH male and female “parts”?
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
exborg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 9
| Posted 4/27/2003 11:27 AM (GMT -6) | | I appreciate all the help. Thanks TGB for the posts. I have a lot to think about. I'm trying to introduce some of these thoughts into my talks with a few friends, but I really should understand things a bit better.
exborg
Edited by - exborg on 04/27/2003 4:28:23 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 4/27/2003 2:22 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey there again Tom,
1Cr 11:7For a man indeed…is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
For what it’s worth  I see God presented as a Father and Son, as both being masculine.
God is Love,
Tim
2Ti 2:19…Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity... | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/27/2003 6:42 PM (GMT -6) | | | Tim, sometimes you go off in left field. (God does not have gender.) Remember, God is creator, and uncreated. The gap between creator and creation is infinite. The descriptions of The Father as father is a symbol. It avoids, for us, many of the mistakes that a female-deity might mislead us in. But the Bible ALSO does have female imagery for God. Don't go off in left field. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/28/2003 5:03 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:59 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|