Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

26 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 11/16/2002 6:26 PM (GMT -6)

Just read an interesting review by Roger Olson of two new introductions to theology written by Sell and Jinkins. Interesting. If you wanna check it out: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/005/5.67.html

Tom

"No one's ever eaten a donut hole because they don't exist." Starkman

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 11/24/2002 5:35 PM (GMT -6)

Tom, go see:

www.addall.com/Browse/Detail/1562121766.html

quote:
God of Weakness How God Works Through the Weak Things of the World
Author: John Timmer
Binding: Paperback, 103 pages
Publisher: CRC Publications
Published Date: 07/01/1996
List: USD $9.75
ISBN: 1562121758

God of Weakness How God Works Through the Weak Things of the World
Author: John Timmer
Binding: Paperback
Publisher: CRC Publications
Published Date: 07/01/1996
List: USD $3.25
ISBN: 1562121766

Edited by - fred on 11/24/2002 10:37:04 PM

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 11/24/2002 6:04 PM (GMT -6)

Good article Tom. I really liked the following:

quote:

A notable common feature of the authors' theologies is their Christocentric focus and methodology. For Jinkins, Christian theology must begin with Jesus Christ and our relationship with him. Sell echoes this Christocentric approach in the first volume of Doctrine and Devotion: "The very plan of this book assumes that if we do not begin from the holy love of God made known to us in Christ, we shall find ourselves in difficulties when we come to fill out our understanding of God."

Both of these Reformed theologians apply the Christocentric approach even to the doctrine of God's nature, attributes, and character. God's glory, Sell argues, must be understood in relation to his character as revealed in Christ: "If ever the thought of bare, sovereign, inscrutable will usurps that of grace, we have the most serious distortion of the gospel, whose first word [because of Christ] is always holy love." Jinkins writes, "God's power is most visible in the helpless and broken figure of Jesus of Nazareth hanging and dying on the cross."

On the other hand I thought these statements were somewhat strange:

quote:

Reason does not seem to play a significant role in Sell's theology, although he can hardly be accused of irrationality.

Echoing Barth, Jinkins says that the value of theology must be "determined by how faithfully it bears witness to the voice and the character of its subject: God." Like Sell, he identifies Scripture, tradition, and experience as his sources and norms. He strives to avoid any role of reason in theology that is independent of revelation and faith.

It seems to me that if they affirmed some basic reasoning they would tip right over into Open Theism.

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 11/24/2002 6:09 PM (GMT -6)

In your second quote, I.: "He strives to avoid any role of reason in theology that is independent of revelation and faith."

Maybe because Christianity is not a Philosophy.

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 11/24/2002 6:33 PM (GMT -6)

Didn't Jesus use reason? Didn't He, in fact, appeal to our reason? If not, then why all the parables?

Didn't Paul use reason? Can Paul use reason but we cannot?

I don't get it.

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Edited by - Iconoclast on 11/24/2002 11:38:10 PM

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 11/25/2002 12:20 AM (GMT -6)

OK, I. Fair question.

Perhaps Mr. Olson chose to say that because he, and presumably the author of the book would have well in mind the legacy of "Scholasticism," in which logic was queen.

I'm sure that that statement was well thought out by Mr. Olson.

So, to answer your question... Its not to suggest the absense, or even the opposition to logic. Rather, its a matter of whether or not logic gets to generate belief (as it does in philosophy).

You see in your quote the two things Mr. Olson chose to place instead of "any role of reason in theology": revelation and faith.

And I notice that qualifies his statement with, "..that is independent of..." So, we see there that he is not, as you perhaps were thinking, saying that revelation and faith are to be without logic and reason.

But, I agree. INTERESTING article.

:

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 11/25/2002 1:28 AM (GMT -6)

from: "The Grace That Shaped My Life" by Nicholas Wolterstorff

To be human is to be that point in the cosmos where God's goodness is meant to find its answer in gratitude: John Calvin told me that.

John Calvin alone among the classical theologians had written of the suffering of God

To wreak injustice on one of one's fellow human beings, said Calvin, is to wound and injure God; he said that the cry of those who suffer injustice is the cry of God

To be human is alsothis: to be that point in the cosmos where the yield of God's love is suffering.

Edited by - fred on 11/25/2002 06:46:54 AM

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 11/25/2002 3:38 AM (GMT -6)

Iconoclast-

I hear ya. David Basinger wrote a nice article about this entitled, “Biblical Paradox: Does Revelation Challenge Logic?” JETS 30/2 (1987), pp. 206-222. He deals with the place of reason in making theological claims. John Sanders also deals with this in The God Who Risks, pp. 34-38. And somebody I’m enjoying more and more, Vincent Brummer, deals nicely with this in Speaking of a Personal God (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 1-32.

Instead of trying to say positively how far “reason” on its own can get us (certainly not very far; faith and revelation are necessary), I’m more concerned with the claim by some that reason be sometimes dispensed with. Whether or not we should affirm self-contradictory beliefs is I think really important. I submit that mystery is one thing and self-contradiction is quite another, and that the latter has no place in Christian theology. Scripture nowhere encourages us to affirm or bow our knee to self-contradictory claims. I can think of several reasons why dismissing with logical coherence is a fatal step to take. First, the logically impossible cannot be meaningfully embraced by us or attributed to God. God cannot make a square circle or a married bachelor, and we do not make God greater or more glorious by insisting that he can perform such actions. There’s no cash value to be had, existentially speaking, in embracing such claims.

The doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation are often offered of examples of our affirming self-contradictory claims. But though these are indeed mysterious, these are not self-contradictory. They are not the theological equivalent of square circles and married bachelors. In order for the Trinity to constitute an antinomy of this sort, what would need to be asserted is belief in “one God and three Gods.” Such a belief would then provide an antinomy that logically parallels the determinist’s claim that “God unconditionally determines our choices and we are justly held responsible for them” and the Arminian claim that “God eternally foreknows as certain the free choices we will make.” The doctrine of the Trinity, however, does not claim this and thus does not provide us with an example of the sort of thing some urge us to affirm with respect to God’s sovereignty and human freedom.

If we seek to speak meaningfully of God, logical coherence must be maintained. The alternative is agnosticism. If we admit logically self-contradictory claims, then we abandon one of the necessary criteria of meaning. We also would have little basis upon which to combat false teachings (like open theism!) on the basis that they don’t make sense.

Applying this to openness passages, for example, as I’ve argued before, God’s transcendence may certainly mean he is more than these passages reveal him to be, but if we are to maintain that Scripture “reveals” God to us it must also be true that God is not less than or contrary to what these passages reveal him to be. Open theists don’t claim to possess an exhaustive understanding of the Triune nature of God or the incarnation. God is certainly beyond our comprehension. What is claimed is only that what God has chosen to reveal to us about himself cannot meaningfully be embraced or expressed by us in self-contradictory terms. Thus, I never dispense with reason. God gave it to us, we should make use of it. Like I said, there are two issues. One is, Can reason take us all the way? Does reason dispense with the need for faith and revelation? I’d answer no. But the flipside is equally important: Do revelation and faith ever demand us to set reason aside and affirm self-contradictory truth claims. I’d also answer here no.

It’s difficult to understand why those who claim we should not attempt to resolve the self-contradiction present in the beliefs that a) God eternally and unconditionally predetermines all things and also justly holds us responsible for our choices, or that b) God eternally foreknows our free choices, object to the open view on the basis that in their view it makes self-contradictory claims, or that it makes claims they can’t “make sense of.” How can God fulfil his purposes if the future is open? How are “unfulfilled expectations” not equivalent to “divine mistakes”? etc.. What if open theists simply played the age-old determinist’s trump card here and said, “Well, ya know. It’s all a mystery. That it doesn’t make sense to you is not strike against the open view”? Opponents wouldn’t permit it. Seems to me that “antinomy” (so-called “mystery” by theologians of antinomy) often becomes a dumping ground for parts of a system of belief which simply don’t work. One may wonder, assuming that God intends us to understand what he means to communicate, and assuming that God is the consummate communicator (rather than an inept one), why self-contradictory beliefs are ever made a test of fellowship or credentials. Surely the basis of fellowship and cooperative ministry ought to be what can be affirmed with reason and understanding about God, not what cannot be meaningfully affirmed about him.

Tom

"No one's ever eaten a donut hole because they don't exist." Starkman

Alan Rhoda
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680

Posted 11/25/2002 3:17 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
I submit that mystery is one thing and self-contradiction is quite another, and that the latter has no place in Christian theology. Scripture nowhere encourages us to affirm or bow our knee to self-contradictory claims.

Right on, Tom!

quote:
The logically impossible cannot be meaningfully embraced by us or attributed to God. God cannot make a square circle or a married bachelor, and we do not make God greater or more glorious by insisting that he can perform such actions. There’s no cash value to be had, existentially speaking, in embracing such claims. ... If we seek to speak meaningfully of God, logical coherence must be maintained. The alternative is agnosticism. If we admit logically self-contradictory claims, then we abandon one of the necessary criteria of meaning. We also would have little basis upon which to combat false teachings (like open theism!) on the basis that they don’t make sense.

Good points, though I think we can make them more precise by distinguishing between two different aspects of meaning. Existential meaning refers to the ability of an idea to inform our actions; it's the "cash value" of the idea, as you put it. Logical meaning refers to the ability of an idea to stand in logical relations with other ideas. These terms are my own and are not, as far as I know, part of standard usage, but I think they will suffice to make a point. Contradictions, like square-circles and the like, have no existential meaning. If I think something is a square-circle I will find myself stuck the moment I try to act on that belief. Can I roll it? No, because it is square. Can I stack it like blocks? No, because it is circular. If you tell me that God is all-controlling and that petitionary prayer is efficacious, I find myself in a similar practical quandary. One side of the contradiction encourages me to pray; the other side undermines any reason I might have for praying. So what am I to do? The only way to get by is to temporarily ignore one side of the contradiction. Contradictions, therefore, have no existential meaning, we can't act on the contradiction. But we can understanding that something is a contradiction, so the notion is not completely meaningless. It has an abstract meaning, the sort of meaning that formal logicians talk about when they demonstrate that contradictions logically imply everything, including their own falsehood. So the affirmation of contradictions poses two distinct problems:
(1) They cannot be consistently lived out. (they lack existential meaning)
(2) They cannot be consistently affirmed. (they are necessarily false)
You do an excellect job, Tom in pointing out how affirming contradictions leads to the first problem, but I think the second is at least as serious. If Christian theology involves affirming contradictions then Christianity is necessarily FALSE, and no amount of waving the issues away with talk of "mystery" and the like can avoid that. One of the more clear-headed atheists, Antony Flew, rejects Christianity precisely because he grasps the contradictions at the heart of classical theism.

quote:
It’s difficult to understand why those who claim we should not attempt to resolve the self-contradiction present in the beliefs that a) God eternally and unconditionally predetermines all things and also justly holds us responsible for our choices, or that b) God eternally foreknows our free choices, object to the open view on the basis that in their view it makes self-contradictory claims, or that it makes claims they can’t “make sense of.” How can God fulfil his purposes if the future is open? How are “unfulfilled expectations” not equivalent to “divine mistakes”? etc.. What if open theists simply played the age-old determinist’s trump card here and said, “Well, ya know. It’s all a mystery. That it doesn’t make sense to you is not strike against the open view”?

Another good point. What's sauce for the goose ought to be sauce for the gander as well. In fairness to classical theists, however, since I used to be one, it is not easy to admit to oneself that one's deepest theoretical commitments are mired in contradiction, for that will force one into either making radical conceptual changes or into wholesale mystical irrationality. I struggled for about ten years with the paradox of divine foreknowledge and free will before I finally convinced myself that the apparent contradiction was a real one and that some elements of classical theism had to go. Many people never pursue the issues with the tenacity required to see the contradiction. As long as key notions like "free will", "foreknowledge", "sovereignty", etc. remain unanalyzed, the contradictions remain implicit, not explicit, and thus people can find a sort of temporary refuge from the contradiction by simply not taking the pains to think it through.

God bless you brother. Always enjoy your posts.
Alan

Edited by - Alan Rhoda on 11/25/2002 8:18:39 PM

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 11/28/2002 4:22 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
Existential meaning refers to the ability of an idea to inform our actions; it's the "cash value" of the idea, as you put it. Logical meaning refers to the ability of an idea to stand in logical relations with other ideas. These terms are my own and are not, as far as I know, part of standard usage, but I think they will suffice to make a point.

Alan-

Nice points. I like the distinction you make between "existential" and "logical" meaning.

Tom

"It might take a year or two to begin to understand Calvinism. But you won't do so by reading books. It's a transformation of outlook." Al & Fred

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 11/29/2002 9:47 AM (GMT -6)

Starkman's just kind of hanging out and listening to some good conversation on this thread . . . yes, I "listen", because I have to read alowd (is that a word, alowd?) in order to hear better in my mind!

Alan said, As long as key notions like "free will", "foreknowledge", "sovereignty", etc. remain unanalyzed, the contradictions remain implicit, not explicit, and thus people can find a sort of temporary refuge from the contradiction by simply not taking the pains to think it through."

THAT is not only well said but should be plastered in every Christian's mirror to be read every morning when one gets up. We should apply this kind of thinking to all our approach to Scripture.

And Tom, well, you da man, as always!

Starkman
(It is so cool to gain an education on this site, particularly reading prose like those above!)

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 11/29/2002 12:02 PM (GMT -6)

An CVM Education is...

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 11/30/2002 7:21 PM (GMT -6)

To pursue this a bit farter…
On the “Time” thread Alfred and I were dancing the rumba over the issue of God’s relationship to time. I argued that a) in order for our talk about God to have any meaning for us at all, we must begin with what the concepts and metaphors used of God mean when used of us first, then qualify it if we need to in light of the entire picture of God given in the Bible, and that b) “personal” used of God only reveals God to us if we begin with what “personal” means for us. I said:

quote:
We can only make sense of the Bible’s claim that “God is love” if we START with what WE understand love to be. The same is true of the Cross. We can only categorize the Cross as “love” because we, though fallen, know what love is FOR US. We love, though imperfectly, and so THAT provides the context for us recognizing the Cross as God’s love. I think the same sort of thing works with applying the term “person” and “personal” to God.

Al responded:

quote:
I ask you, Tom. WHY have revelation at all? If you are just going to CONFINE yourself to the structures and experiences that you have humanly (where then is the mystery?) and try to construct everything out of that, then you have done in the contemporary venacular of today exactly what the liberal did in his modernist mileau.

I’d like to bring Al’s objection to grounding the meaning of revelation in our understanding of the concepts and words used to Alan’s point regarding existential and logical meaning.

Al asks why God would have to reveal anything at all if the meaning of what God reveals can be grasped in human terms, or better yet, MUST be grasped in human terms. I still stand by what I said, but I don’t see that it does away with the need for revelation. When I say that in understanding “God is love” as revelation we must begin with what love means to us, I’m not suggesting that we are able to reason our way to a full understanding of God’s love without God revealing anything to us.

The need for revelation exists. But if God wishes to reveal anything to US, then God takes US into account. If God wants to speak to us, he must speak OUR language. If he wants to reveal to us, he must speak (reveal) in human terms and categories we understand. I don’t see anything about God’s transcendence or “otherness” that requires us to believe that the meaning of what God reveals to us must be found either in denying what the words and concepts mean to us or in affirming the opposite of what the words and concepts mean to us. Here’s my tentative offering: Whatever is “absolutely” or “categorically” other than human cannot be revealed to or understood by humans. Communication between absolutely unlike entities is not possible. That’s not to bring God down, or to limit God’s essence to human essence and/or categories. If God is absolutely other than human in any way, so be it. But if this WERE true WE humans could not understand this otherness nor could we know whether or not this otherness ought to affect our understanding of God’s revelation to us, or if it rightly be assumed that it ought to affect it, HOW it ought to affect it. We’d have to understand this otherness in order to make such judgment calls.

There are two things here: First, the claim that God’s revelation must be logically self-consistent (i.e., Allan’s two distinctions of meaning); secondly, the claim that the meaning of revelation be grounded in human experience (i.e., all meaning is analogical).

What about the second claim?

Tom

Edited by - TGB on 12/01/2002 05:49:58 AM

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 12/1/2002 8:02 AM (GMT -6)

Point of clarification. Reading what Tom quotes of me, above, it very much looks as though my saying. "I ask you, Tom. WHY have revelation at all?" was a rhetorical device. The gist was that, perhaps...if I remember, that it seemed that our experience was being nominated to replace Revelation. (I'm guessing here on this last part. But the fact that I was using a rhetorical device is TRUE.)

So, Tom, I did NOT say this:

quote:
Tom: Al asks why God would have to reveal anything at all if the meaning of what God reveals can be grasped in human terms, or better yet, MUST be grasped in human terms.

I am not asking that.

Al

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 12/1/2002 8:30 AM (GMT -6)

My bad Al. Sorry. I guess I didn't understand you. Still don't. But that's OK.

Tom

"It might take a year or two to begin to understand Calvinism. But you won't do so by reading books. It's a transformation of outlook." Al & Fred

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 12/1/2002 8:55 AM (GMT -6)

That's really OK, Tom.

I recognize Sanders in what you were saying. I haven't read his book "", but I did read this review: www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/scholars/freewilltheism.htm

I agreed with Sanders in some things, and with the author on others; and neither on a few things too.

I'm LOOKING FORWARD to your discussion!

Al

P.S. Sanders made a few good points where he then didn't follow further, in my view. And on others he made progress, but then discounted it at the next step. Currious.

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 12/1/2002 11:50 AM (GMT -6)

Tom, here is an interesting section fron that article -- the critique of Sander's . (I'd found it by some websearching of some topic or another.)

quote:
Implications of Jesus’ Trinitarian Relationships

As mentioned above, Sanders rightly focuses on the centrality of Jesus to our understanding of God. Certainly in Jesus we have the fullest revelation of God. As the writer of Hebrews asserts, unlike previous revelation, God has now spoken to us “in Son,” who is “the radiance of his glory and the exact representation of his nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power” (Heb 1:1-3, NASB). Similarly, the Gospel of John puts forward Jesus as the divine lovgo", equal to God (John 1:1). In fact, Jesus himself makes this assertion when he replies, “He who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9).

However, while NT theology surely equates Jesus with Deity, his relation to God is not simply equative. Instead, the NT reveals the triune complexity of God. Jesus is portrayed as the incarnated second of three members in the Godhead. From this perspective, we see that the person and work of Jesus is aspectual,31 as opposed to comprehensive revelation of God.

Important here is the distinction between Jesus as the incarnate Son and God the Father. In light of the Church’s historical understanding of the Trinity and the doctrinal commonality of the present audience, a full-blown defense of the Trinity is unnecessary for this paper. However, it is important that we emphasize the importance of recognizing the differences between the Father and the Son. This is a distinction consistently asserted by Jesus himself.32

Sanders argues that “there is no way for us to know a god beyond the God who comes to us in Jesus.”33 In turn, we see Jesus as the Son, self-distinguishing himself from the Father. Pannenberg notes that the revelation of the Son’s consciously maintained distinction between himself and the Father, in itself constitutes a revelation about the essence of divinity.34 So then, Jesus reveals to us a triune God. However, this plurality renders any simple equation of Jesus to God untenable.35 Jesus is fully God, but the triune God is not only Jesus. Furthermore, this complicates the prospect of drawing conclusions about the Father from the person of the Son. This trinitarian relationship is the reason why “the deity of the Jesus Christ cannot therefore have the sense of undifferentiated identity with the divine nature, as if in Jesus, God the Father himself had appeared in human form and had suffered on the cross.”36 At points in his presentation Sanders seems to make precisely this mistake of simply equating Jesus with God.37 Often discussions of Jesus’ actions immediately proceed into unqualified assertions regarding God’s nature. The biblical revelation of God’s triune essence should caution any such direct or uncritical application.

However, the revelation of God in the person of Jesus Christ not only reveals a Father/Son distinction but also includes information regarding their interpersonal relationship. While the NT writings demonstrate the essential unity between the Father and the Son as well as their personal distinctiveness, it also affirms a functional subordination. Taylor comments that for Jesus, this subordination “is not merely a temporary condition which he obtains while he lives on earth, but an eternal relationship which is manifested amid the conditions of his human existence.”38

This relationship appears as a dominant theme in the life and ministry of Jesus. Particularly illuminating in this regard is the Gospel of John. In addition to numerous instances of Jesus’ deference to the will of the Father,39 John’s inclusion of the high priestly prayer (17:1-25) describes a preexistent functional differentiation. This relationship is likewise reflected through the writings of Paul. In reference to the Son being in subjection to God the Father Taylor notes, “The distinction in order must be understood in terms of love, since in the mind of St. Paul Christ is the Son of God’s love (Col. i. 13) and ‘the Beloved’ (Eph. i. 6).”40 Taylor goes on to demonstrate that the subordination motif is explicitly continued through much of the Pauline corpus as well as the Letter to the Hebrews.41 Just as the Father/Son distinction prevents direct correlation between members of the Godhead, this willing and loving functional differentiation between the Father and the Son further complicates any attempt to use Jesus alone as the model for God. The biblical revelation presents us with a more complex picture of God and the expression of his will.42

So then in Jesus Christ we have a fuller depiction of God. If Sanders is correct in asserting that we can only know God as he reveals himself to us, then we must account for the fact that he reveals himself to us as Trinity. We understand that Jesus, while being in very nature fully God, is also distinguished from the Father in both person and function. For this reason it is necessary to qualify our understanding of anthropomorphism. It may be that the person of Jesus is the ultimate anthropomorphism, but this anthropomorphism relates properly to the distinctive second person of the Trinity and his particular function. Derivative conclusions regarding God the Father or the Godhead as a whole must account for these revealed distinctions.

(from "The Jesus Who Never Knew: Free-Will Theism and the Incarnation", by Craig W. Thompson, Dallas Theological Seminary)
www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/scholars/freewilltheism.htm

P.S. - I liked what Sanders was saying about the nature of sin. See footnote 47 in that article.

The reality of the Godhead, so to speak, is intrinsically relational - or, as Basil of Caesarea put it, God is 'a kind of continuous and indivisible koinonia, (Letter 38, Migne, PG 32, 332a). - FERGUS KERR OP

Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 12/01/2002 4:52:08 PM

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 12/1/2002 4:04 PM (GMT -6)

Tom, borther in the Lord's service....

You wrote:

quote:
The need for revelation exists. But if God wishes to reveal anything to US, then God takes US into account. If God wants to speak to us, he must speak OUR language. If he wants to reveal to us, he must speak (reveal) in human terms and categories we understand. I don’t see anything about God’s transcendence or “otherness” that requires us to believe that the meaning of what God reveals to us must be found either in denying what the words and concepts mean to us or in affirming the opposite of what the words and concepts mean to us. Here’s my tentative offering: Whatever is “absolutely” or “categorically” other than human cannot be revealed to or understood by humans. Communication between absolutely unlike entities is not possible. That’s not to bring God down, or to limit God’s essence to human essence and/or categories. If God is absolutely other than human in any way, so be it. But if this WERE true WE humans could not understand this otherness nor could we know whether or not this otherness ought to affect our understanding of God’s revelation to us, or if it rightly be assumed that it ought to affect it, HOW it ought to affect it. We’d have to understand this otherness in order to make such judgment calls.

Now, help me out, Bro! It all looked really fine to me. Just what am I supposed to locate that you maybe think I might find objectionable. I liked it when I read it.

Al

The reality of the Godhead, so to speak, is intrinsically relational - or, as Basil of Caesarea put it, God is 'a kind of continuous and indivisible koinonia, (Letter 38, Migne, PG 32, 332a). - FERGUS KERR OP

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 12/2/2002 10:12 PM (GMT -6)

Al-

I’ve been insisting that the meaning of revelation be grounded in human experience. Apparently you agree. So let me rephrase it: If a concept or metaphor used to describe God does not mean something analogous to what the WE mean when we use the concept or metaphor, then God is not revealed to us; revelation has no meaning. That’s all I’m saying.

You’re objection that revelation not be “confined” to human experience to safeguard the “mystery” of God certainly made it appear to me that you were arguing that we affirm about God what has no meaning for us. I’m glad to have misunderstood you on this score. If we agree that understanding God’s revelation to us never requires us to affirm what is self-contradictory to us, then we’re cool.

I think there may be implications of this that you would not accept. For example, if we were back on the “Time” thread (which we’re not

), I’d ask what there is in human experience that gives meaning to the concept of an “absolutely timeless” and “maximally personal” God. But since we’re not on that thread, I won’t ask it. I gather that you felt these two categories are logically and meaningfully compatible. I didn’t.

I’m not particularly interested in “time” right here. I just want to nail down the truth of the claim that “all meaning is analogical” and chase down the implications this has for determining the meaning of what God reveals to us in words. So far all I’m really sure of is that we can never meaningfully affirm what is self-contradictory.

Tom

"It might take a year or two to begin to understand Calvinism. But you won't do so by reading books. It's a transformation of outlook." Al & Fred

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 12/3/2002 2:14 AM (GMT -6)

Tom: I’ve been insisting that the meaning of revelation be grounded in human experience. Apparently you agree. So let me rephrase it: If a concept or metaphor used to describe God does not mean something analogous to what the WE mean when we use the concept or metaphor, then God is not revealed to us; revelation has no meaning. That’s all I’m saying.

Al: You wrote, "...then God is not revealed to us; revelation has no meaning." I'D CHANGE IT TO: "then . . .meaning is not revealed." I know that I feel very small saying that "God has meaning." Who am I to measure God even in that way. But I'll say it, so as, by comparison, to say that while "meaning may not be revealed" it is no reflection on meaning; its a reflection on us.

I should pull ups a small text coipy of Woltersdorgg in the Banner, on "God Speaks." It fits the discussion well, I think, in that it supports well what you are posting--the part I agree with. But I think I see in the article who's paragraph I posted above, that Sanders slides from meaning is not revealed to revelation has no meaning. That's the impression I got of what tha author's beaf with him was. And if to, what mine would be too.

Tom, you wrote: If we agree that understanding God’s revelation to us never requires us to affirm what is self-contradictory to us, then we’re cool. I suppose I agree. But I do not feel that any of us are free, then, to take partial revelation and do anything that we can with it within the laws of logic. (Not waything that you would; but people do. And the Medival Scholastics and their decendents did/do.) So, when you say, "of an “absolutely timeless” and “maximally personal” God ... I gather that you felt these two categories are logically and meaningfully compatible.", I'd say that AFTER I change your term "absolutely timeless" (which definitley sounds removed from time--which is Biblically false) to "preeternal" I'd then say that BOTH of these are biblical, and while our understanding may be limited (and is) that does not mean that we can just set the two side by side and insist that 'only the winner come out standing.' (This isn't the Wild west; nor is it Charlamagne's court.) So, you guessed it: I believe that God is preeternal AND maximally personal. Its Biblical. Its real.

[quote]Tom: I just want to nail down the truth of the claim that “all meaning is analogical” and chase down the implications this has for determining the meaning of what God reveals to us in words. So far all I’m really sure of is that we can never meaningfully affirm what is self-contradictory.]

You old Scholastic, you.

But seriously, “all meaning is analogical” is Sander's phrase. I'd retort that not all that is real is holdable by analogy, is 'analogical-able.' But Sanders, as reported in that article MAKES THAT JUMP.

No, we are not on the Time thread. But I'm glad you refered to it, and gave the example. I think that having that in front of both of us made this exchange more possible. And it helps me bring the following to the stage.

The Open View is an insufficient reformation of the Classical View. Both, it seems to me, locate God's nature in his atributes. Were that so then 'maximally personal' and 'preeternal' would be logically contradictory. They God's nature comes from his personal freedom, of the Father; and not from some alleged god-ness that the Trinity is somehow 'made of.' God is Trinity. Tri-unity. Not three god's made of one god-substance. Personal communion is the mode of God's existence -- God's ontology.

The reality of the Godhead, so to speak, is intrinsically relational - or, as Basil of Caesarea put it, God is 'a kind of continuous and indivisible koinonia, (Letter 38, Migne, PG 32, 332a). - FERGUS KERR OP

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 12/3/2002 4:33 AM (GMT -6)

Help me out here, Tom. Perhaps I'm having difficulty distinguishing between two phrases: "logically and meaningfully compatible" and "self-contradictory." I'm a slow learner. I was getting the impression that you were saying that "“absolutely timeless” and “maximally personal”" were an example, for you, of "self-contradictory." Maybe I've collapsed the two into one. Help?

Where you ask (but don't

), below, "what there is in human experience that gives meaning to the concept of an “absolutely timeless” and “maximally personal” God." (I had to change the wordiing, remember.), my first answer is that there is none and it does not matter. I'm not really satisfied with that answer, though. I think that salvation is an example.

quote:
I think there may be implications of this that you would not accept. For example, if we were back on the “Time” thread (which we’re not ), I’d ask what there is in human experience that gives meaning to the concept of an “absolutely timeless” and “maximally personal” God. But since we’re not on that thread, I won’t ask it. I gather that you felt these two categories are logically and meaningfully compatible. I didn’t.

Salvation can ONLY come from God, who is not bound by necessity. ONLY God, who is free, can save us who are not free. I'm only thinking of this because it is the closest we can be to God--to participate in his uncreated life by grace. Yet, we STILL can not, in our humanity, experience what it is to be preeternal.

I found this in CALVIN's COMMENTARIES

quote:
CALVIN: COMMENTARIES

There is a knowledge that gives a man power over the thing known; the knowledge of the Christian man is the opposite of this. By the knowledge of God the Christian subjects himself to God's power. The latter knowledge differs from "the speculative," which Calvin considered incongruous with the Christian's relation to God. We know God, not to use him, but to worship and obey him. Therefore we know, not God's essence (as we know the essence of an object), but his grace and will by and for worship and obedience. This knowledge is one adapted to our role as creatures, and one sufficient for this role; not more and not less than we need to believe in God and obey him. It is knowledge first and last of God's love exercised toward us; a knowledge carrying with it a certainty all its own by the same acting of God; but one in which "facts" as read in the Bible act as "signs" of God's spiritual power, and establish the sovereignty of God as God by pointing to him whose "being" is hidden from the mind of man.[43]

(THE LIBRARY OF CHRISTIAN CLASSICS Volume XXIII, Newly translated and edited by JOSEPH HAROUTUNIAN, Ph.D., D.D., Cyrus H. McCormick Professor of Systematic Theology, McCormick Theological Seminary, Chicago, Illinois)

Amen!

The reality of the Godhead, so to speak, is intrinsically relational - or, as Basil of Caesarea put it, God is 'a kind of continuous and indivisible koinonia, (Letter 38, Migne, PG 32, 332a). - FERGUS KERR OP

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 12/3/2002 5:26 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Help me out here, Tom. Perhaps I'm having difficulty distinguishing between two phrases: "logically and meaningfully compatible" and "self-contradictory." I'm a slow learner. I was getting the impression that you were saying that "“absolutely timeless” and “maximally personal”" were an example, for you, of "self-contradictory." Maybe I've collapsed the two into one. Help?

Give me some time to think on it. I'm hoping Alan jumps in here with a comment. I think I've exhausted my intelligence!

quote:
Salvation can ONLY come from God, who is not bound by necessity. ONLY God, who is free, can save us who are not free. I'm only thinking of this because it is the closest we can be to God--to participate in his uncreated life by grace. Yet, we STILL can not, in our humanity, experience what it is to be preeternal.

I would agree with everything up to the last sentence, about which I'd only say: To me the word "preeternal" has no meaning. It's like saying, "Fushkalapsidia." I have to agree that I can't experience what it is to be "preeternal" because "preeternal" HAS NO MEANING for me. It's not that I understand what it means to be preeternal and agree that I don't qualify. I haven't even gotten that far. I simply don't understand "preeternal."

Tom

"It might take a year or two to begin to understand Calvinism. But you won't do so by reading books. It's a transformation of outlook." Al & Fred

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 12/3/2002 6:21 AM (GMT -6)

Tom: I simply don't understand "preeternal."

quote:
Today the Virgin comes to the cave to give birth ineffably to the pre-eternal Word. Hearing this, be of good cheer, O inhabited earth, and with the angels and the shepherds glorify Him whose will it was to be made manifest a young Child, the pre-eternal God. (Kontakion of the Forefeast)

Eternal is something that we can kind of relate to. Just take time and keep on going. Eternity has no end; but it does have a beginning. God is pre-eternal.

Here are a few more mindstretchers...

quote:
"We...have now, through Jesus Christ, learned to despise [the gods of Greek mythology], though we be threatened with death for it, and have dedicated ourselves to the unbegotten and impassible God" (St. Justin Martyr, "First Apology," 25.2, The AnteNicene Fathers, Vol. I [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978], p. 171).

quote:
"For [God] does not simply provide for us, but He does so by loving us, and by loving us exceedingly, with a love that is infinite, a love that is passionless [apathe], but most fervent and intense" (St. John Chrysostomos, "Address To Those Who Have Been Scandalized," 6, Patrologia Græca, Vol. LII, col. 488).

"Preeternal" means "before" eternity, asside from and not measured by. Yes, Tom, we do understand "pre" from our experience. And "preeternal" (a liturgical and theological term, but not found in scripture) is a kind of analogy, I guess. But its the majority view.

quote:
The Word, alone compassionate and pre-eternal, who was born in the last times from a Virgin and abolished the ancient curse, praise him, you Priests, highly exalt him, you peoples, to all the ages.
(Orthodox hymn, Matins, Theotokion, Tone seven.)

and

quote:
What shall we offer you, O Christ,
who for our sakes has appeared on earth as a man?
Every creature made by you offers You thanks,
the angels offer You a hymn;
the heavens a star; the magi gifts;
The shepherds, their wonder; the earth its cave;
the wilderness, the manger;
and we offer You a virgin mother.
O pre-eternal God, have mercy on us!

(Orthodox hymn, The Nativity of our Lord, Dec 25, Vespers)

I don't know when saying "pre-eternal" began. But its a good word.

Al

The reality of the Godhead, so to speak, is intrinsically relational - or, as Basil of Caesarea put it, God is 'a kind of continuous and indivisible koinonia, (Letter 38, Migne, PG 32, 332a). - FERGUS KERR OP

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 12/3/2002 6:24 AM (GMT -6)

Tom: I simply don't understand "preeternal."

quote:
Today the Virgin comes to the cave to give birth ineffably to the pre-eternal Word. Hearing this, be of good cheer, O inhabited earth, and with the angels and the shepherds glorify Him whose will it was to be made manifest a young Child, the pre-eternal God. (Kontakion of the Forefeast)

Eternal is something that we can kind of relate to. Just take time and keep on going. Eternity has no end; but it does have a beginning. God is pre-eternal.

Here are a few more mindstretchers...

quote:
"We...have now, through Jesus Christ, learned to despise [the gods of Greek mythology], though we be threatened with death for it, and have dedicated ourselves to the unbegotten and impassible God" (St. Justin Martyr, "First Apology," 25.2, The AnteNicene Fathers, Vol. I [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978], p. 171).

quote:
"For [God] does not simply provide for us, but He does so by loving us, and by loving us exceedingly, with a love that is infinite, a love that is passionless [apathe], but most fervent and intense" (St. John Chrysostomos, "Address To Those Who Have Been Scandalized," 6, Patrologia Græca, Vol. LII, col. 488).

quote:
The Word, alone compassionate and pre-eternal, who was born in the last times from a Virgin and abolished the ancient curse, praise him, you Priests, highly exalt him, you peoples, to all the ages.
(Orthodox hymn, Matins, Theotokion, Tone seven.)

and

quote:
What shall we offer you, O Christ,
who for our sakes has appeared on earth as a man?
Every creature made by you offers You thanks,
the angels offer You a hymn;
the heavens a star; the magi gifts;
The shepherds, their wonder; the earth its cave;
the wilderness, the manger;
and we offer You a virgin mother.
O pre-eternal God, have mercy on us!

(Orthodox hymn, The Nativity of our Lord, Dec 25, Vespers)

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 12/3/2002 8:22 AM (GMT -6)

A bit of Sanders that I thought interesting!

quote:
“We know nothing of a God unrelated to us.”

26 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:46 AM (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

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual