 |
 | 
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/28/2004 1:38 PM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Originally posted by Sahid
Why do you say that God is impassible? If by 'impassible' you simply mean 'other', then I think it would be better to ditch the word 'impassible', because I'm pretty sure it can also mean 'not passible'. This is only a guess, but maybe the association of 'impassibility' with 'otherness' came from the fact that something without passion would be very different from humans. However, I don't see how you could say God is not passible in any way. But maybe you didn't say that. It's just that using 'impassible' to mean something other than 'not passible' is very confusing. We might as well talk about immaterial materials.
So is God impassible with my definition of impassibility?
The problem comes when we think we can "define" God. We can talk about what we know of God from his actions. John Behr writes that "Theological language does not describe the divine nature itself, but rather expresses the contemplation of God's revelation." and "Every term, Gregory (Nyssa) argues, that has 'been discovered by human convention' or 'handed down by the Scriptures' 'is explanatory of our conceptions of the divine nature, but does not include the signification of that nature itself.'" and "...the divine nature is unnamable and ineffable." (The Nicene Faith, Part 2, Vol. 2, (c) 2004 SVSP)
We (as those in the past) work out ways of describing divine actions, but cannot begin to define God. No theological term should be taken to be such a definition.
But when Athanasias looked at Christ in the Garden he used a set of words that pitted against each other artfully pictured what we need to see:
quote:
"...he was God, himself willing, but becoming man he had a flesh that was in terror, on account of which [i.e., the flesh] he combined his own will with human weakness, so that destroying this [suffering] he might in turn make man fearless in the face of death... For he abolished death by death, and by human means all human [suffering], so by this supposed terror he removed our terror, so that man may never more fear death."
See how it matters to him? See the place of this contrast, which we can THINK ABOUT, but which in Christ's incarnation was NOT seen divided in ANY way. Behr says:
quote:
"The impassibility of the Word in the midst of the suffering that afflicted his body is thus best understood in terms of the Word's active, willing acceptance of our human condition. Only by accepting to undergo what human beings undergo, rather than having it forded upon him, does Jesus Christ overturn the hold that it has on human beings.
It is THIS Biblical point, that Christ's sacrifice HAD to be voluntary, and is proclaimed to be voluntary... that it was a death of one not subject to death... THAT IS WHAT THE WRITER PRESERVES, AND EMPHASIZES in his choice of words. He is willing to accept the tension of terms pitted against each other when such a truth as this above is at stake. So, saying that the "impassible" (not subject) subjected himself to our passion, to save us from the outcome of our passible terrors... that is worth the work!!!
It is in the context of the message of the incarnate savior that such a jumble of words is used. It is not an exercise in philosophy, nor of metaphysics. The un-subject God-man subjected himself for us who were fatally subject!!! | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/28/2004 4:28 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sahid
So do you think God the Father is passible? Or is it only through Jesus that God suffers? It seems to me that there are examples of God suffering grief in the Old Testament also.
Sahid, in the OT God is a she-bear, has wings, etc. This is text designed for us. It makes a point. It doesn't mean that we see God directly. The unknowability of God is scriptural. Angels hide their faces. We know the Father only as he is revealed in the Son.
to say that the father "suffers grief" is a meaningful expression that speaks to us in a way we can relate to. It gives us a framework to think in. It says a couple of things to us that we need to hear.
(This is explained very well above!) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/29/2004 1:02 AM (GMT -6) | | Greg, your 'thought' is "for all we know." But the fact is that there ARE things about God that you cannot know directly. And the fact is that our direct communion with Christ in the Spirit does give us direct access to knowing Christ, in whom the fullness of the Father is.
There are things about God which can be known in our mind that cannot be experienced too: We can think about the Father and the Son and the Spirit, but in experience we experience the common work of all of them together. Our experience doesn't always match up with our reasoning, and our reasoning in one thing doesn't always help us in another. (Gregory Nyssa's use analogy of three persons to fit biblical data to one arguement, but necessity of dropping that analogy when addressing a different biblical issue.)
But, Sahid, "No man has known the Father except the Son." That did not change with the new covenant. We know the Father through the Son in the Spirit. In Christ is that revelation, but you still do not know the Father the way that the Son does.
Greg, you like the fashion of saying what gets a rise and makes you feel good. You like to live dangerously. But you don't seem to have patience for what isn't your issue. I posted some very important things, and re-pointed them out. I'll have to post them again.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/29/2004 1:11 AM (GMT -6) | | This is worth heading:
The problem comes when we think we can "define" God. We can talk about what we know of God from his actions. John Behr writes that:
"Theological language does not describe the divine nature itself, but rather expresses the contemplation of God's revelation." and "Every term, Gregory (Nyssa) argues, that has 'been discovered by human convention' or 'handed down by the Scriptures' 'is explanatory of our conceptions of the divine nature, but does not include the signification of that nature itself.'" and "...the divine nature is unnamable and ineffable." (The Nicene Faith, Part 2, Vol. 2, (c) 2004 SVSP) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/29/2004 1:15 AM (GMT -6) | | POSTED IN CONVERSATION WITH TOM, ON PAGE TWO...
But focus on the Christological issues, the salvific, the transfigurative, the image-likeness issues.
The testemony of the Church is that we are created to "grow in perfection." Perhaps if we were in a world without sin we would use different language. But as it is, this seeming paradox is useful!
. . . .
"What is "perfect harmonious and movement" IN US, by the Spirit?
That is what makes this all inescapable.
I simply stated the Churches confession, its clinical observation based on what it CAN know -- the question of "what we shall be" in that twinkling of an eye that Paul mentions, and what we are now supposed to be becoming (the clinical experiment of both those married and those monasitic). I stated it, as smoothly, and without cause for offence. But state that God is impassible and immutable I must. And remind that for the Christian those do not mean exactly the same as for the pagan I also must; and did.
What "movement" is in us -- striving after that which is not our created destiny -- is countered by what harmony of ever growing perfection that we "shall be." And while God, who has made himself known, is beyond comprehension -- yet we salivate to know Him better. And that knowledge is only found in the seeds of growth in us, in the restoration and transformation in us, in the Spirit's work in us, IN HIS LIKENESS.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/29/2004 1:23 AM (GMT -6) | | If BOTH the words "passion" and "impassion" get used in that enterprise, that should not amaize us. (Unless we consider theology to be an exercise in philosophy or metaphysics.)
Athanasias found it vitally useful to speak of God's impassive nature (though he did not know that nature from direct experience) with respect to Christ "impassively" assuming our passion for our sake. The Biblical truth that mattered required it.
Yet, Christians also, just as easily, speak of God's "passion." This need not shock us, as we are NOT defining God's unknowable nature (Greg does not know that nature from direct exposure either, but only through what relationship he has with Christ by the Spirit.).
A post that should not be unread that uses that word "passion" will be in the next post. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/29/2004 1:29 AM (GMT -6) | | FROM ANOTHER SITE..........
quote:
---------------------------------------
A . . . post referred to the so-called "wrath of the Lamb" and "wrath of the Father" in Revelations. Again, from an Eastern Orthodox perspective which is that of our original Greek (the West has a long history of forming its theology without being fluent in the original Greek that the East has always been), this is a mistranslation. The word in Greek is thymos. It occurs five times in the New Testament writings of St. Paul, once in Hebrews, twice in the Gospel according to Luke, and 10 times in Revelations. In general, thymos is the courageous power of the warrior and a part of the soul in Greek thought. It is also means to boil up and is a force that breaks bonds and obstacles. Thymos, even in Homer and Plato and the Bible, is the courage to overcome the fear of death. Thymos is means passion. The "passion of the Lamb" is how the Greek reads. Tou theou (so-called "wrath of God") is the "passion of God". If any of you know your early Church doctrinal history about the controversy of whether or not the "Father suffered"? Its scriptural basis was this expression in Revelations "tou theou" -- the "passion of God" (NOT "!" wrath of God") because everyone in the early Church read it as "passion of God" which is what the Greek means. Its the western mistranslations that screws up the west here. The early Latin translations of thymos was ardentio (ardent striving) and/or passio (passion). Later, in the middle ages after Anselm, iracundia (wrath, irate) and furor (anger) came into usage to interpret the Latin Bible's ardentio and passio christi. Protestants naively picked it up even despite the fact that a few of their Greek scholars pointed out it was wrong (bad theology drove scriptural mistranslation).
---------------------------------------
Another:
---------------------------------------
Simple. The action of God provokes others to anger (ogre). Literally, it is the reactive upsurge (usually human) to God's butting in, interfering. In the OT, especially in the LXX, ogre is the human reaction/perception of God's thymos. If this was God's anger, the Greek words kotos, cholos, or menis would have been used. Orge is basically evil's incompatibility with God's goodness. Thus in the active form, orgizo means God's actions/interventions makes people angry as does the noun form parorgisma (provocation to anger). Thus, God's protection of Israel from other nations fills them with vexation (orge) as does God's commitment to justice fills an astray Israel with vexation (ogre). In Genesis, God allows fallen humanity to have its way (give them enough rope to hang themselves) which vexes humanity (ogre). The Holiness of God vexes (ogre) unjust sinners. Thus, the justice of God (dikaiokrisis) has the effect of ogre on humans. Ogre is the effect on sinners of God's dikaiokr!
isis and ekdikesis (Lk, 21:22 and Rom. 2:5). Again, thymos = passion; ogre, orgizo, parorgizo, and parorgisma (provoked to anger and vexation -- royally "pissed off" following the Hebrew word "to pee in another's well") is the effect God has on others. Thus the numerous genitive constructions orge tou thymou (the vexation/anger provoked by God's passion) or orge thymoutai (the angry effect of God's passion). Thus, the justice, love, and holiness of God's passion is "vexful" for Israel (Mt: 3:7; Lk 21:23) and all sinners (Eph. 2:3), the rich and powerful (Rev. 6:15), and His salvation, symbolized by the Cup, "stupefies" (Rev. 14:8); ogre is the "feedback" of attempting to block or oppose God or despising God's love/justice.
---------------------------------------
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/29/2004 1:32 AM (GMT -6) | |
"Theological language does not describe
the divine nature itself, but rather expresses the
contemplation of God's revelation." and "Every term,
Gregory (Nyssa) argues, that has 'been discovered by
human convention' or 'handed down by the Scriptures'
'is explanatory of our conceptions of the divine nature,
but does not include the signification of that nature
itself.'" and "...the divine nature is unnamable
and ineffable."
(John Behr, The Nicene Faith, Part 2, Vol. 2, (c) 2004 SVSP)
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/29/2004 1:40 AM (GMT -6) | | GEEBOB'S TWO LISTS ARE NOT TOTALLY MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
quote:
Originally posted by geebob
quote:
What are the bare minimum assumptions of open theism?
I didn't like answers to this question in the topic post.
For one, it suggests that open theism is about omniscience and foreknlwedge.
Well those are important and represent distinctives of the open view, and it may get the most press, but that is not the central issue in the open view.
The open view is a reaction against the classical view that claims that God is immutable, impassible, simple, timeless, meticulously soverign and so on. all of these are contentions that are just as important (well except for simplicity...not many hold to that any more) if not more than the contention regarding edf.
at the heart of open theism is that God is personal and he has created a creation with intentions of having a significant give and take loving relationship. It is from what we believe is necessary to those two points from where the rest of the open view arises.
the opening post seemed to me to basically suggest what was the bare minimum of having an open future. But an open future is only a part of the open view, and though a necessary part, definitely not the central part.
WHERE CLASSICAL DEFINITIONS *WERE* OFTEN (ESPECIALLY IN SCHOLASTICISM) AN ATTEMPT TO DEFINE GOD'S NATURE -- WHICH IS NOT KNOWABLE DIRECTLY EXCEPT IN THE REVELATION OF HIS ACTS TOWARDS US THROUGH CHRIST IN THE SPIRIT; THE PERSONAL, LOVING GOD WHO MAKES MANKIND AS PROPHET, PRIEST AND KING, TO TILL AND TEND, AND TO OFFER LIFE AND THE WORLD 'BACK TO' GOD IN WORSHIP, WITH FREE WILL, IS NOTHING NEW IN CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/29/2004 3:12 AM (GMT -6) | | PoW: Athanasias found it vitally useful to speak of God's impassive nature (though he did not know that nature from direct experience) with respect to Christ "impassively" assuming our passion for our sake. The Biblical truth that mattered required it.
Tom: And what biblical truth might that be, PoW? I've seen no blical argument from you whatsoever for an impassible divine nature.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/29/2004 3:58 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
PoW: Athanasias found it vitally useful to speak of God's impassive nature (though he did not know that nature from direct experience) with respect to Christ "impassively" assuming our passion for our sake. The Biblical truth that mattered required it.
Tom: And what biblical truth might that be, PoW? I've seen no blical argument from you whatsoever for an impassible divine nature.
Tom
How should I say this, so as to be gracious?
PREJUDICE MAKES THE EYES BLIND!
Poor quality reading is rampant. TGB only focused on the word "impoassibly" and didn't try to understand what was bing said. (He got stalled the same way early in this thread when the term first came up.) This means that what the word signifies is traded for a strawman that TGB wants to defeat. That's a non-starter, though, as I can't defend what I am not even trying to say. And it is a shame to post the same observation so many times and have it ignored/abused.
In the sentence "Christ "impassively" assuming our passion for our sake," the word "impassively" is an adverb. It helps describe the manner in which Christ assumed our passion//suffering. The opposite of im-passionately would be with-passion. And what I'm saying there is a my-own-words description of what was important to Athanasias, that: Christ VOLUNTARILY assumed our passion. And THAT requires that Christ was not vulnerable to suffering that passion without his willing to do so! Were Christ just another victom, he could not save us. But, Christ WILLED to take our weaknesses upon himself.
That is what I believe.
That is what we are talking about.
(I think you posted to quickly, Tom.)
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/29/2004 6:15 AM (GMT -6) | |
I THINK GEEBOB'S QUESTION IS NEGLECTED
IN INTEREST OF MAKING A "STRAWMAN"
OUT OF THE WORD "IMPASSIBLE."
quote:
Originally posted by geebob
[quote]What are the bare minimum assumptions of open theism?
SOMEONE ANSWER GEEBBOB'S QUESTION! | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 6/29/2004 8:27 AM (GMT -6) | | When you define God as indefinable, you break your own rule. To say, "God is indefinable" is to define God. If God is indefinable, then you cannot accurately say, "God is indefinable". How should we translate "God is love"? "God has been revealed to us as love, but this is only how He appears, so we can't be sure."
I agree that God won't be fully known here on earth, but Jesus does know the Father, and I am identified with Jesus. I have been baptized into his body. I get the same relationship with the Father that he has. If not, I'm still a slave to sin and death, and I had better live it up know, because now is all I have.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/29/2004 8:59 AM (GMT -6) | | Sahid/Zach: When you define God as indefinable, you break your own rule. If God is indefinable, then you cannot accurately say, "God is indefinable".
PoW: Defining God after realizing that he is undefinable is breaking a rule. Job, and how many others realized that they couldn't do it. The basis is scripture.
But some have gone as far as saying that to call God "God" is too presumptuous, because even then we bring our own preconceptions. And any preconceptions we bring enter error into what we experience of God. Worship, they say, should be utter AWE. J.R.Packer says as much in his book "Knowing God."
The point about not introducing error, and learning who God is in worship, is that DIRECTLY and not by ideas and reason is the way God is known, and how we learn of him. Where does the scripture have God say "learn of me." I think it was in context of action and relationship. "Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls." (Matthew 11:29)." THAT's how we "learn of God."
Agree?
Sahid/Zach: How should we translate "God is love"? "God has been revealed to us as love, but this is only how He appears, so we can't be sure."
PoW: We can say that "God has revealed himself unto us." But we DON'T say that God is trying to fool us. What God reveals is TRUE.
Sahid/Zach: I agree that God won't be fully know here on earth, but Jesus does know the Father, and I am identified with Jesus. I have been baptized into his body. I get the same relationship with the Father that he has. If not, I'm still a slave to sin and death, and I had better live it up know, because now is all I have.
PoW: The Son "knows the Father" and the Father "knows the Son." You get the same relationship with the Father BY GRACE -- that is through participating in Christ by the Spirit -- as the Son has by nature. We don't become one of the Trinity; so we don't get that "relationship." But, as St. Athanasias said: "God became man that man might become god (small-g)." Said another way: Christ became human that we might "become divine" (which means participate BY GRACE in Christ through the Spirit)
St. Athanasias the Great (from Alexandria, Egypt, around the time of the Nicene Creed) was describing RELATIONSHIP with God, and not theory. Participation in God through Christ in the Spirit (a 'Trinitarian' happening) means that we do "become partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4).
And, as to your concern that what we learn of God might be "this is only how He appears, so we can't be sure" -- that is not true. If we only saw the waves or felt the wind, or heard the trees we might wonder if we have the whole picture, the whole understanding. But IN CHRIST we are TRANSFORMED in our inner being. NOTHING in all of creation and in all of our life ever compares to it. Even were we to fall deeply into sin, and be more deluded than anyone has ever been, deep within us we would STILL long for God, "as deep calls to deep." (That is the torcher of the Devil!)
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/29/2004 9:37 AM (GMT -6) | | The following is hurt-causing:
quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
Heads up, Sahid. PoW tends to implicitly condemn all Open Theists as somehow not approaching God approriately--"in awe and worship"--as if Open Theists don't do this, and as if using one's God-given intelligence to reason about God and interpret Scripture is somehow unspiritual. (For me, Open Theism has caused me to bow to God in MORE awe and worship than I ever have before).
The really ironic thing is, if what PoW is saying is true, then he has no better reason for believing in Christ than a Buddhist does for believing in karma. It all boils down to one's own subjective perception of what (or Who) is worthy of "awe and worship."
Anti-intellectualism in the name of spirituality from one so obviously intelligent and God-loving is really pathetically sad.
How very, very sad.
As to the first paragraph, I've been pointing out on this thread that "O-T" is not the only approach that holds to much of the list that "O-T" prides itself on. Also, I tried to focus on what is central to the Faith. Noting is said, nothing is implied that is derogatory about someone elses relationship with God. ("False witness" for John to say I have -- and I'm shocked and saddened.) Reason is good. But those wise will realize that it is not the only thing necessary -- and not the "one thing necessary" that Christ spoke of. If John want's to address the scripture I posted he would do well.
It is slanderous to say that my faith is no better, no more salvific than a Buddhist.
Nothing in what I posted was anti-intellectual. But scripture does warn that reason alone is not enough.
John, I am seriously surprised. I did not expect that from you.
Saddened,
- PoW
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 6/29/2004 9:51 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
The following is hurt-causing:
quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
Heads up, Sahid. PoW tends to implicitly condemn all Open Theists as somehow not approaching God approriately--"in awe and worship"--as if Open Theists don't do this, and as if using one's God-given intelligence to reason about God and interpret Scripture is somehow unspiritual. (For me, Open Theism has caused me to bow to God in MORE awe and worship than I ever have before).
The really ironic thing is, if what PoW is saying is true, then he has no better reason for believing in Christ than a Buddhist does for believing in karma. It all boils down to one's own subjective perception of what (or Who) is worthy of "awe and worship."
Anti-intellectualism in the name of spirituality from one so obviously intelligent and God-loving is really pathetically sad.
How very, very sad.
As to the first paragraph, I've been pointing out on this thread that "O-T" is not the only approach that holds to much of the list that "O-T" prides itself on. Also, I tried to focus on what is central to the Faith. Noting is said, nothing is implied that is derogatory about someone elses relationship with God. ("False witness" for John to say I have -- and I'm shocked and saddened.) Reason is good. But those wise will realize that it is not the only thing necessary -- and not the "one thing necessary" that Christ spoke of. If John want's to address the scripture I posted he would do well.
Nothing in what I posted was anti-intellectual. But scripture does warn that reason alone is not enough.
John, I am seriously surprised. I did not expect that from you.
Saddened,
- PoW
Hi PoW,
As usual, you mistook my statements.
quote:
It is slanderous to say that my faith is no better, no more salvific than a Buddhist.
What I actually said was that you have no better REASON for your faith, not that your faith is not salvific. The Buddhist appeals to his own experience of his faith, just as any anti-intellectual Christian does.
As to your accusation of me bearing "false witness" against you, I am amazed that you would even try to deny that you have repeatedly expressed your views on Open Theism here as that it is: "an allergic reaction" to determinism and is essentially wrong-headed in its approach to God.
The fact that you typically refer to YOUR favorite theologians (all non-Openness/classical) as approaching theology from a perspective of "awe," "worship," and "devotion" clearly implies (to those of us who don't agree with classical theism, at least) that you mean we are somehow less devoted to God than the patristics/Calvinists/Orthodox, etc., which you flood most threads with quotes from.
I realize you are quite sensitive to criticism, PoW, and I certainly do not mean to question YOUR relationship with God, though it certainly seems to me that you tend to question the Open Theists' relationship to God. (In the sense of "true devotion").
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/29/2004 10:16 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
Skimming back over the last page of the thread, I don't see much if any Scripture that you have referenced, PoW.
That makes it sound as if I used no scripture.
If you look at the Scriptures I used you will get a better idea of the thesis upon which I wrote my post.
- "Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls." (Matthew 11:29).
- A liturgical form of Isaiah 22:14 "But the LORD of hosts revealed Himself to me"
- The Son "knows the Father" and the Father "knows the Son." -- as in John 16 and other places
- "become partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4).
- TRANSFORMED in our inner being -- AS IN: "And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect. (Ro 12:2) AND "But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit." (2Co 3:18)
- "as deep calls to deep." -- AS IN: "Deep calls to deep at the sound of Thy waterfalls" (Psalm 42:7).
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 6/29/2004 10:26 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Sahid/Zach: How should we translate "God is love"? "God has been revealed to us as love, but this is only how He appears, so we can't be sure."
PoW: We can say that "God has revealed himself unto us." But we DON'T say that God is trying to fool us. What God reveals is TRUE.
First of all, to say "God only reveals what is true" is to define God, "after realizing that he is undefinable".
Next, "God is love" defines God. God revealed this statement, so it is TRUE. Therefore, "God is love is a true definition of God. Maybe not a specific definition. But still a definition.
God has also revealed we responsible for our sin. God revealed that He expects us to do good, at least sometimes (the vineyard). Seems to me that God has revealed that we have choices to make. It also seems to me that God has revealed that we can sometimes get God to change His plans (Moses interceding for Israel). quote:
The Son "knows the Father" and the Father "knows the Son." You get the same relationship with the Father BY GRACE -- that is through participating in Christ by the Spirit -- as the Son has by nature. We don't become one of the Trinity; so we don't get that "relationship." . . . Participation in God through Christ in the Spirit (a 'Trinitarian' happening) means that we do "become partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4).
Are you saying we become one with Christ but not one with the Trinity, or are you saying something else? What divine nature is there apart from the Trinity? Haven't we become children and fellow heirs with Christ? If we are not identified (made the same as) Christ then how are we to rise from the dead? How are we to approach God boldly?
Finally, I don't care about any of your supposed motivations, at least not for the purposes of forming my own opinion. For me personally, ever since I accepted Christ as Lord and Saviour, I've had a hunger to get to know him even better. That hunger has gone hand in hand with a hunger to know truth and reject lies regardless of the consequences. It just scares me to think that I could look back on my life and remember accepting a lie because the consequences were easier. The wonderful thing is that whenever my beliefs are torn down in order to match the truth, God's love somehow is more "real" to me. When I abandoned my old prejudiced reasons for believing Christ, I found that Christ was still there. He didn't need me to bend the truth for him. I'm not saying that you are bending the truth. THAT IS NOT MY POINT AT ALL. I'm just restating the old cliche in my own words, "All truth is God's truth." I am one who seeks after truth passionately. I believe that is part of what Christ has recreated me to be. I believe we can and should reason about God from God's revelation.
With love and hope that you will forgive any arrogance that I unintentionally show you,
Sahid (a name my friends gave me)
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/29/2004 10:32 AM (GMT -6) | | John: As to your accusation of me bearing "false witness" against you...
pOw: You said that I "implicitly condemn all Open Theists..." I would not post on this board If I didn't believe that I could do so, and be posted to, without wedges of derision. Your "false witness" is not about individual words, but about a person claiming that he has malace against others. I do not.
PoW: It is slanderous to say that my faith is no better, no more salvific than a Buddhist.
John: What I actually said was that you have no better REASON for your faith, not that your faith is not salvific. The Buddhist appeals to his own experience of his faith, just as any anti-intellectual Christian does.
PoW: That's not true, and it is completely unrepresented by my post.
- But IN CHRIST we are TRANSFORMED in our inner being.
- we do "become partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4).
- "Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls." (Matthew 11:29)."
That is the Gospel.
John: The fact that you typically refer to . . . clearly implies . . . that you mean we are somehow less devoted to God . . .
PoW: That's called "second guessing."
Modes of Thought, Greg's assitant, invited me onto this board. He, I, and many other who remain here make an effort to point to the "one thing necessary" (Luke 10:41-42) Tom is another one who comes to mind. There is ONLY one faith. Brandon is talking on another thread about not letting theories and systems get in the way of the ONE STORY. Amen! That is what I'm doing in that post too.
John: ...it certainly seems to me that you tend to question the Open Theists' relationship to God.
PoW: No. But we can ALL hold up the "one thing needful" for us all to see. | | Back to Top | | |
| 142 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:34 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 |
|
|