 |
| 
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 8/6/2002 7:33 PM (GMT -6) |   | This quote from Geisler's Battle For God book has me pondering so I thought I'd throw it out and ask for any responses:
In the chapter on God's eternality he writes:
What neotheists fail to see is that this is not really an argument against all talk about God but only why talking about him in temporal terms is not possible. Further, rather than eliminate all God-talk, it calls for analogious God-talk. It points out that temporal language does not fit a nontemporal Being. But it does not follow that no language is appropriately used of a nontemporal God.
Of course temporal statements cannot be applied to God univocally. If they could, then God would have to be temporal. On the other hand, unless we are willing to accept the total (self defeating) agnostic view that no statements can be applied to an eternal God(including this statement), then we must accept some form of analogy. This is precisely what classical theist argue: All finite and limited temporal conditions must be removed from a term before it applies to God. Hence, if we say God is good, He cannot be good in any temporal or changing sense of the term. He can only be eternally and unchangeably good.
My questions are this: does not Geisler's own words (which are temporal) make his own point mute? How do we know what God is like, except from temporal words? What is eternally and unchanging good, except that such a thing is filtered through our temporal minds? And who sets the standards? While Geisler adknowledges that all words are temporal, he seems to be setting up his words as eternal, the true standard by which we should judge any temporal descrition of God. Yet what gives him such a right? Does he have information about God that the rest of us do not possess.
Its one thing to say all temporal meanings must be removed from words when they apply to God. Its another thing to do it? What it comes down to, it seems to me is that Geisler has a particular view of what attributes give God the most glory and he finds these in scripture, rather than taking scripture and finding out what it says about God. As one can see in the above quote, Geisler has a great problem with God being temporal...yet, we need to drop (as much as possible) our preconceived notions of God and try (again, as much as possible) to find out what scripture actually says about God...not what we want it to say...
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Newcomb
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 116
| Posted 8/14/2002 5:56 AM (GMT -6) | | Hello 'Writer'
(This will be posted both in this section and in my subject of time.)
Oh, I love Geisler, but here he is wrong, you are right.
You quoted Geisler as saying:
quote:
What neotheists fail to see is that this is not really an argument against all talk about God but only why talking about him in temporal terms is not possible. Further, rather than eliminate all God-talk, it calls for analogious God-talk. It points out that temporal language does not fit a nontemporal Being. But it does not follow that no language is appropriately used of a nontemporal God.
OK, let's try to explain God with no "temporal terms"
For Geisler to be correct we would need to reconstruct the English language (I would prefer we revert to Gaelic anyway:-) to get rid of what is called the temporal index.
It is nearly impossible to create a sentence describing things with tense-less verbs. A temporal index is the tense of the verb indicating where in time we are talking about.
Remember again, time is the fourth demension. Just as you cannot completely describe a box without its three dimensions, length, height, and width, so it is hard to describe things without the temporal index that accompanies normal speech.
The words listed below are daughter concepts to the parent concept of time. They cannot exist and have meaning if time does not exist, so the exercise becomes one of describing God and what he is like without using any of these words, or any other temporal index.
If you posit that time is not applicable to God and, as Geisler said, we need to remove temporal talk about God, then the exercise becomes trying to describe him without any of these words:
Across, Affiliate, After, Afterward, Age, Agreeing, Ahead, Already, Amplitude, Antecedent, Area, Beat (Musical), Before, Beforehand, Behind, Breadth, Broadness, Cadence (rhythm or, beat), Centimeter, Circumstance, Coinciding, Collaborate, Concurrent, Concurrently, Confluent, Congruous, Contemporaneously, Continuance, Converging, Cooperate, Cooperative, Coterminous, Course , Crosswise, Cycle, Date, Development , Distance, Duration, During, Earlier, Episode, Epoch, Era, Event, Expanse, Feet, Following, Fore, Formerly, Future, Gauge, Height, Heretofore, Inches, Incident, Instant, Interval, Join, Kilometer, Large, Lasting, Later, Length, Light, Magnitude, Manometer, Meanwhile, Measure, Method, Miles, Millimeter, Moment, Move, Narrow, Nearness, Next, Occasion, Once, Opportunity, Originate, Over, Past, Period, Preceding, Present, Previously, Prior, Procedure , Process , Progress, Progression , Proximity, Range, Rate, Reach, Rhythm, Route , Season, Simultaneous, Small, Soon, Sooner, Space, Span, Stretch, Subsequently, Swing, Synchronal, Synchronous, Tempo, Term (period of time), Then, Thereupon, Therewith, Time, Together, Transverse, Uniting, Wavelength, When, While, Whilst, Wide, Wideness,
One way or another each of these, and others require time. This does not deal with tense at all, these words simply cannot be used by Geisler’s standard. Once these are eliminated from our language, then we can go about trying to eliminate the temporal index of the remaining words.
This is untenable.
“Neuk’em”
"Neuk'em" | | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 8/15/2002 10:09 AM (GMT -6) | | Great post! I, too, like Geisler, but he is definitely wrong here.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Newcomb
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 116
| Posted 9/9/2002 5:46 AM (GMT -6) | | I was reviewing Geisler's Come, Let us Reason yesterday when I ran across another quote where he makes several errors.
Keep in mind he is on record against Openness Theism (I think we should call it relational theism). He defends the classical view.
On page 21 he is in the intro to logic and errors when he states:
quote:
Predestination also confuses some people. As a morally perfect being, God cannot forcepeople to do what they do not choose. Furthermore, forced freedom is a contradiction. But it is not contradictory for God to determine what people will do with their free choice. In this way, God can control and determine the choices we make, but he does not force those choices on us. God works persuasively, not coercively. We still experience our choices as free -as our decisions -even though God both knew what we would decide and chose that we would decide it long before we did. Forced freedom is a contradiction, but God determinately choosing that I make a free choice is not.
(italic his)
What a bag of Bandini!
Here Geisler (God bless him) equivocates the term 'determine' (and its variations) to make it sound tolerable, and steps firmly on a road apple. How? Because one sense of the term means 'acquire' and the other means 'choose.' So when he says "God determines" it sounds like he is saying 'God acquires the knowledge of what we will do' but what he means is 'God chooses for you.' He states so.
Well, in Geisler's situation, who is making the choice? God is making the choice. He states quote:
God both knew what we would decide and chose that we would decide it long before we did
. We are not the free will agents here, God is. We are the ones forced to live with another's choices. The question is, why is someone else paying the freight? If God chose long ago that Hitler murder 7 million Jews and many more millions of other groups (including Bonhoeffer), then why do we blame Hitler for God's choice?
Why do we call God 'good' if he was the one what chose that Kirby would rape my sister? Or the Mexican gang would gang rape my niece? It isn't their choice according to Geisler, who again said: quote:
God both knew what we would decide and chose that we would decide it long before we did
.
Geisler switches and uses a word ("determine") which is easily equivocated so we don't catch his equivocation. He makes an A=A error in that the sense in which he uses the term "determine" makes determine=force. If anyone else chooses for you and you have no choice but to follow, that is force, even if done with a velvet hammer.
But isn't it interesting that Geisler uses a temporal term? He stated that God determined our choices "long before we did." The entire phrase had temporal index.
But he equivocates a second time as well. God doesn't use persuasion, he forces it on us (according to Geisler). God doesn't say "I have chosen this for you and really want and hope you will do it." Geisler's God DETERMINES that you will indeed do what God chose for you to do. This is force; it is a category error to define this as persuasion. Geisler is self contradictory.
Then, the phrase "whosoever will may come" is false. It is really, "who ever God predestinated to become a Christian will come" because again, it is God's choosing that determines it "long before we did" and, therefore, condemns all others to hell because the only free agent is God who does the choosing.
Geisler's premise, that is, of trying to explain Calvinistic predestination in palatable terms failed. He ends up claiming it is the tenable pill we all think it is.
Again on page 111 he restates the same error:
quote:
. . .God determined that a choice will be freely made. In other words, it is possible for God to use free will as a means to do what has been determined. This does not inhibit freedom. . .
He goes on from there.
He makes the same error here. If life is like a rollercoaster, that is, there is a predetermined path that we will follow, it does not follow that we have freedom of choices when we in fact do not. I might have the choice of getting onto a rollercoaster, that is my free will, but from there the course is determined by the engineer and builder of the roller coaster, not by me. But to get on this rollercoaster (life) I did not use my free will, my parents did. Well, actually, this isn’t true either, if I must make a certain “choice” then my parents necessarily birthed me because there would be no way to bring me about, so even their choices are not choices. Now, since I was a legitimate birth, there is not moral problem with that choice, but both my brother and a friend are not. My brother was conceived before marriage (and caused the marriage), my friend was born from a date rape situation. Here we have moral choices. Who made those immoral choices??? Geisler says: quote:
God both knew what we would decide and chose that we would decide it long before we did
and quote:
. . .God determined that a choice will be freely made. In other words, it is possible for God to use free will as a means to do what has been determined. This does not inhibit freedom. . .
Pardon me, but the girls mentioned here were not exhibiting free will, they were raped. The perpetrators were, but not according to Geisler because : quote:
God both knew what we would decide and chose that we would decide it long before we did
.
"Neuk'em"
"Neuk'em" | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 9/9/2002 4:16 PM (GMT -6) | | I have immense respect for Geisler. However, in the area of free will, he's become caught in his own web; he fights hard for free will but refuses to allow it to come to its logical conclusion, and thus makes those blunders Newcomb points out. And that's sad, because, like him, there's many Christians who I believe shy away from the open view because they are more than likely simply afraid of it. To even consider the possibility of it being true is to shudder in fear with questions: "But would God still be God? Would He still be able to control things . . . my life?"
It's my personal thoughts about much of the rejection of the open view, most particularly by those whose logic should elucidate better than it does.
For freedom,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Metochoi
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2002
Total Posts : 3
| Posted 9/16/2002 4:22 PM (GMT -6) | | Hello All! New to forum here.
I'm taking a "Prolegomena" course under Dr Geisler now at www.ses.edu.
He enjoys reading responses to his views, I'll share your post with him and post any subsequent comments he may have to share. 
"I will not work my soul to save,
For that my Lord alone has done;
But I will work like any slave
Because I'm loved by God's dear Son!"
Edited by - Metochoi on 09/17/2002 9:46:40 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 9/16/2002 5:18 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Hello All! New to forum here.
I'm taking a "Prolegomena" course under Dr Geisler now at www.ses.edu.
He enjoys reading responses to his views, I'll share your post with him and post any subsequent comments he may have to share.
"I will not work my soul to save,
For that my Lord alone has done;
But I will work like any slave
Because I'm loved by God's dear Son!"
Welcome to our discussion Metochoi! I think you will find some Prolegomena fans on board. Let us in on some of the stuff you’re learning some time. Electra
Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. Matt. 10:8
Edited by - Electra on 09/16/2002 10:21:36 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Metochoi
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2002
Total Posts : 3
| Posted 9/17/2002 2:39 PM (GMT -6) | | Well, my very first class last week I actually learned what "prolegomena" means! ...
Pronunciation: "prO-li-'gä-m&-"nän, -n&n
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural pro·le·gom·e·na /-n&/
Etymology: Greek, neuter present passive particle of prolegein to say beforehand, from pro- before + legein to say --
Date: circa 1652:
prefatory remarks; specifically : a formal essay or critical discussion serving to introduce and interpret an extended work
Per Dr Geisler; In the field of theology, "prolegomena deals with the study of necessary pre-conditions required for doing systematic theology." (p.15, Introduction, Bible, Systematic Theology, Vol 1, Geisler, Norman L.)
In the field of philosophy, a prolegomena presents information needed before a study of an area is begun by the student.
"Science is what you know, philosophy is what you don't know." (Bertrand Russell) 
"I will not work my soul to save,
For that my Lord alone has done;
But I will work like any slave
Because I'm loved by God's dear Son!"
Edited by - Metochoi on 09/17/2002 9:47:47 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 9/17/2002 3:34 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Well, my very first class last week I actually learned what "prolegomena" means!...
Pronunciation: "prO-li-'gä-m&-"nän, -n&n
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural pro·le·gom·e·na /-n&/
Etymology: Greek, neuter present passive particle of prolegein to say beforehand, from pro- before + legein to say --
Date: circa 1652:
prefatory remarks; specifically : a formal essay or critical discussion serving to introduce and interpret an extended work
Per Dr Geisler; In the field of theology, "prolegomena deals with the study of necessary pre-conditions required for doing systematic theology." (p.15, Introduction, Bible, Systematic Theology, Vol 1, Geisler, Norman L.)
In the field of philosophy, a prolegomena presents information needed before a study of an area is begun by the student.
"Science is what you know, philosophy is what you don't know." (Bertrand Russell)
Thanks for spelling it out for us! I hope I am not revealing my ignorance, but what is the relationship between prolegomena and method? Is prolegomena a) a part of method b) a distinct kind of method or c) distinct from method? Also, what are some examples of classic prolegomenas? Just curious, Electra
Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. Matt. 10:8 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Metochoi
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2002
Total Posts : 3
| Posted 9/17/2002 4:53 PM (GMT -6) | | hmmmm....? Can I get back with ya on that?
"I will not work my soul to save,
For that my Lord alone has done;
But I will work like any slave
Because I'm loved by God's dear Son!" | | Back to Top | | |
|
jlreed
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2002
Total Posts : 17
| Posted 9/20/2002 9:20 AM (GMT -6) | | Hello! I am also new to this cite. I'm excited to participate! I have some comments I would like to make. First, I find it very interesting that many of the posts on Geisler seek to give a psychological analysis of Geisler, rather than, deal with his arguments. For example, some on this board will something like, "Classical theists don't like open theism, because it won't give God the most glory." Statements like these could be true, but they have no bearing on the arguments offered.
Second, there has been no treatment of the doctrine of analogy. Geisler's criticisms of open theism find much of their justification from this doctrine. It's the doctine that God talk is true, but incomplete. That is, God-talk is not totally like or unlike God. Misunderstandings of temporal terms is a case in point. Analogy does NOT deny that temporal terms are applied to God. What Geisler means when he says that temporal terms cannot be applied to God, is, the terms derived from temporal experience cannot be univocally applied to God. This should not be objectionable. The same is true for anything spiritual. For example, give me a term for the spiritual world that is not a material term? What is a spirit? Can you draw a picture? Of course not. However, we can talk about spirits using material terms, as long as, we apply those terms analogically.
If one wants to object to temporal terms being used to talk about eternity, then one has to jettison any talk about the spirtual using material terms as well. And at that point, Christianity is done as a rational discourse.
The doctrine of analogy is the only rational option for the theist.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 9/20/2002 7:07 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 9/21/2002 3:09 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey JLReed,
Welcome to the board!
Well, let's yak some about what you've posted.
"First, I find it very interesting that many of the posts on Geisler seek to give a psychological analysis of Geisler, rather than, deal with his arguments.
Most everything posted on this particular thread about Geisler was nothing but a consideration for his logic. Re-read Newcomb's posts. Nothing much else was stated until first some arguments were layed regarding his thinking.
Note, too, that the open view topic has been discussed ad nauseam (ok, not ad nauseam, but certainly to the point many have said, "Gads, enough already!") You can search the archives and find it until you're blue in the face!
"Classical theists don't like open theism, because it won't give God the most glory." Statements like these could be true, but they have no bearing on the arguments offered."
I couldn't agree more, if by this you mean that this is not a logical or philosohical view. But it is an equally argued theological view, as are statements of the obverse: "God knowing the future exhaustively gives more glory to Him than the open view." Both can be argued. I don't use this argument myself; I prefer to allow God in Scripture to set the stage.
Second, there has been no treatment of the doctrine of analogy. Geisler's criticisms of open theism find much of their justification from this doctrine. It's the doctine that God talk is true, but incomplete. That is, God-talk is not totally like or unlike God. Misunderstandings of temporal terms is a case in point. Analogy does NOT deny that temporal terms are applied to God. What Geisler means when he says that temporal terms cannot be applied to God, is, the terms derived from temporal experience cannot be univocally applied to God. This should not be objectionable. The same is true for anything spiritual. For example, give me a term for the spiritual world that is not a material term? What is a spirit? Can you draw a picture? Of course not. However, we can talk about spirits using material terms, as long as, we apply those terms analogically.
If one wants to object to temporal terms being used to talk about eternity, then one has to jettison any talk about the spirtual using material terms as well. And at that point, Christianity is done as a rational discourse.
"
Well, wait a second here . . . talk of analogy is one thing. Adjusting a hermeneutic to avoid the obvious is another. Sure, God does not have chicken feathers because a Psalmist states that God hides us under his wing, or that God's a blast-furnace because His eyes are like fire. But there's not a reason in the world to take God for what He means when God tells Moses "I'm angry--horribly angry--at Israel; get outta my way because I'm going to destroy them all and I'll restart with you." That's simple, plain language without the need to adjust it because we just don't want to accept the idea that a "transcendant" God can't get mad or be hurt.
This falls directly in line with the way God interacts and reacts with his created order. The evidence, in the open view perspective, is that God does not know (and does not prohibit Himself from knowing) what that portion of the future is that He has not predestined or cannot see in view of being able to read man's heart and mind, along with all the other intangibles. However, He certainly knows all logical possibilities and is never caught off guard.
Geisler, as I noted based on Newcomb's posts and other discussions, seems to care about human freedom but ultimately sacrifices it as if he's just not wanting to deal with the vastness of this issue. Oh, there could be many reasons, really, why he believes what he does--he may have never even thought the open view the least bit possible in all intellectual honesty. But I'm convinced that there's a lot of unearthed fear holding the ground on which non-open viewists stand. Many are afraid to dare to even consider that it could be true. It would be overwhelming. Others? Well, they simply believe it doesn't have a chance theologically or philosophically or emotionally; however, as Newcomb showed, the logic these folks do hold often times doesn't cut the mustard.
Well, my pot-pie is done (gads, I'm eating one of THOSE things!)
And again, hey, welcome!
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
jlreed
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2002
Total Posts : 17
| Posted 9/21/2002 3:25 PM (GMT -6) | | Hello!
quote:
Note, too, that the open view topic has been discussed ad nauseam (ok, not ad nauseam, but certainly to the point many have said, "Gads, enough already!") You can search the archives and find it until you're blue in the face!
I apologize. I did not realize the amount of posts on this topic already.
quote:
Well, wait a second here . . . talk of analogy is one thing. Adjusting a hermeneutic to avoid the obvious is another. Sure, God does not have chicken feathers because a Psalmist states that God hides us under his wing, or that God's a blast-furnace because His eyes are like fire. But there's not a reason in the world to take God for what He means when God tells Moses "I'm angry--horribly angry--at Israel; get outta my way because I'm going to destroy them all and I'll restart with you." That's simple, plain language without the need to adjust it because we just don't want to accept the idea that a "transcendant" God can't get mad or be hurt.
Metaphors like chicken feathers is one thing, analogical predication is another. When I use the word 'analogy' I am referring to the philosophical/theological use of that term. Geisler has a chapter on analogy is his Philosophy of Religion and his Systematic Theology Vol.I. So, I am not talking about metahpors or anthropormorphisms. Plus, it seems to beg the question in favor of open theism. That is, your intrepretation of those texts in which God is angry is based on open theism. Well, open theism's truth or falsity is was is at issue. Moreover, there are other texts which state God does not change and there is no shadow of change in him. Maybe you could tell me what the doctrine of analogy is, so that I can see if I am working with the same definition, and tell your position on it.
Thanks!
Jason
Edited by - jlreed on 09/21/2002 8:26:45 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 9/21/2002 8:13 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Hello! I am also new to this cite. I'm excited to participate!
Welcome, jlreed! Liked your post.
quote:
I have some comments I would like to make. First, I find it very interesting that many of the posts on Geisler seek to give a psychological analysis of Geisler, rather than, deal with his arguments. For example, some on this board will something like, "Classical theists don't like open theism, because it won't give God the most glory." Statements like these could be true, but they have no bearing on the arguments offered.
You make a good point. As C.S. Lewis points out in his essay "Bulverism" (in "God in the Dock"), one needs to show THAT someone is wrong before offering explanations, psychological or otherwise, as to WHY someone is wrong. In short, neither classical nor open theists should try to explain the perceived aberrations in each other's viewpoints before examining the arguments given for those viewpoints. On this discussion board, as Starkman pointed out, most participants have examined the arguments for and against classical theism and open theism and found open theism to be significantly more plausible. Given that background, attempts to psychoanalyze critics of open theism as to why they seem unable to see what most on this discussion board perceive to be true are appropriate. If, however, arguments should come to light that call open theism into question, then one still needs to deal with those arguments and not dismiss them as the deluded ravings of someone with an axe to grind.
quote:
Second, there has been no treatment of the doctrine of analogy. Geisler's criticisms of open theism find much of their justification from this doctrine. It's the doctine that God talk is true, but incomplete. That is, God-talk is not totally like or unlike God.
The doctrine of analogy is important, but you need to be careful how you state it. It's NOT the view that ALL God talk is true, but incomplete. If it were, then it would be self-defeating because the claim that ALL God-talk must be analogical is a claim about God that is not analogical. Rather, one should say that SOME God-talk is analogical. In fact, the development of the doctrine of analogy by Aquinas et al. was designed to deal primarily with a special subclass of predicates that we ascribe to God. These are the so-called "pure perfection" terms like "goodness", "wisdom", "justice", "love", etc., which denote qualities that God possesses to an infinite degree, but we can only comprehend to a finite degree. Furthermore, as one of my professors at Fordham Univ. (Brian Davies, a well-respected Aquinas scholar) continually emphasized, analogy is a LITERAL mode of discourse. When we say "God is good" we mean that God, literally, IS good. The doctrine of analogy comes in at that point to remind us not to conceive of God's perfections in a limited fashion.
quote:
Misunderstandings of temporal terms is a case in point. Analogy does NOT deny that temporal terms are applied to God. What Geisler means when he says that temporal terms cannot be applied to God is [that] terms derived from temporal experience cannot be univocally applied to God. This should not be objectionable.
If Geisler wants to describe temporal God-talk as analogical, then he is misusing the doctrine of analogy. Analogy, let me reemphasize, is a LITERAL mode of discourse. If temporal God-talk is analogical, then that means that God is, literally, temporal, but not in a way that would compromise his perfection. But this is clearly not what Geisler believes. He, along with Aquinas, views God as strictly a-temporal. In other words, on his view it is literally FALSE to apply temporal terms to God. What Geisler should say is that on his view temporal God-talk is EQUIVOCAL, that is, literally false but perhaps still revealing some truth about God in a FIGURATIVE sense.
At any rate, the question of whether temporal God-talk ought to be interpreted as literal or figurative depends on whether it is proper to conceive of God as temporal or not. This is a hotly-debated topic among Christian philosophers. It seems to me, though, that the temporalists have been gradually winning the philosophical debate. For details, see the recent book "Time and Eternity" by William Lane Craig.
Finally, in your response to Starkman, you wrote:
quote:
There are other texts which state God does not change and there is no shadow of change in him.
True, but in context all of these passages are concerned to emphasize that God is completely trustworthy, that He is faithful to his covenant promises, etc. None of the passages implies anything more than that God's moral character does not change. This has been pointed out by Greg Boyd in "God of the Possible" and by other openness proponents. Openness proponents would charge that to read such texts as implying that God is absolutely unchangeable in the sense of classical theism is to overinterpret the passages. The contexts simply do not require that strong a reading.
Anyway, hope that helps.
God bless,
Alan
Lege, lege, lege, ora, labora, et relege. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 9/22/2002 4:44 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey there, JLReed,
With regard to the philosophical understanding of the doctrine of analogy, I've not studied philosophy, so do not know to what you refer. Wish I did, though! I can't seem to keep my head on my shoulders very long when I try and study philosophy. Makes me mad, too! But, oh well.
However, you did mention something I can comment about:
"your intrepretation of those texts in which God is angry is based on open theism.
No, it's based on simple, plain communication skills that take place between people. Well before I even knew about open theism, I believed that God said what He meant in every way that I would say what I mean. Again, when the obvious kicks in--analogy, metaphor, etc., that's kind of a no-brainer. And as Alan said, when God says "I change not," the clear implication, after watching God in all of Scripture, as well as taking the statement itself in context, is that God is not refering to His knowledge of the future (other than, as I've said, His ability to predestine and know the human heart and mind), but is a reference to the reliability of His Word, His character and integrity. God often does change His mind outside of these perimeters (see aaaaaaalll of the posts of the past!) And these changes should be treated in the same type of relationship we humans change our minds.
If I tell someone I'm going to do something and later change my mind because the circumstances deem it the better to do so, or someone has asked me to please change my mind about the issue, I may do so. God reveals Himself as doing the same thing. It's simple, plain day-to-day relationship. I think, however, many Christians are threatened by this, not just because they firmly believe that Scripture reveals God to know the future exhaustively, but because they've already been taught to believe that holding any other view of God is impossible; the a priori is that if God is God , He must be know EVERYTHING and be able to do EVERYTHING, no exceptions to the rule, period. Fear can step in as the motivation to preserve one's beliefs at all costs of logic and consideration for those portions of Scripture which can be interpreted from an open view perspective. I can't technically prove that this is going on in a Christian's heart when the open view is discussed, but I've seen it myself with those of whom I've discussed open view. Some freak. Some don't. I think that's normal for us humans.
Well, I gotta go again!
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 9/22/2002 9:59 AM (GMT -6) | | Starkman, this is no lack of personal respect. But half of what follows is "fun'n with ya" and the other half is criticism of ALL of us American Midwesterners. We all suffer from MONO-LINGUAL-MYOPIA. Its a disease of the mouth that affects the eye sight. (mono-lingual = speak only one language. Myopia = nearsighted.)
If we grew up with a variety of languages and cultures mixing around us we would not be so COCKED-SURE that things are as we think they look to us!
So when you say this:
quote:
No, it's based on simple, plain communication skills that take place between people. Well before I even knew about open theism, I believed that God said what He meant in every way that I would say what I mean. Again, when the obvious kicks in--analogy, metaphor, etc., that's kind of a no-brainer. And as Alan said, when God says "I change not," the clear implication, after watching God in all of Scripture, as well as taking the statement itself in context, is that God is not referring to His knowledge of the future (other than, as I've said, His ability to predestine and know the human heart and mind), but is a reference to the reliability of His Word, His character and integrity. God often does change His mind outside of these perimeters (see aaaaaaalll of the posts of the past!) And these changes should be treated in the same type of relationship we humans change our minds.
It does not make you sound Fundamentalist, it makes you sound "American!"
quote:
Riddles:
What do you call someone who speaks two languages?
Answser: bi-lingual.
What do you call someone who speaks one language?
Answser: American.
- "I believed that God said what He meant in every way that I would say what I mean"
- "when the obvious kicks in"
- "when God says "I change not," the clear implication"
(Yes, Starkman, it does make it far better when you do add: "watching God in all of Scripture." But it still lets you miss things that those of the culture or time would catch and that you will miss.) - "God often does change His mind outside of these perimeters (see aaaaaaalll of the posts of the past!) And these changes should be treated in the same type of relationship we humans change our minds."
Remember, the Bible is the official document of the court. It is official communication and official documention. That is its cultural and literary mileau. And the terms-definitions and the concepts that are used are all taken from the available sitzimleben and zeitgeist of the time and local and tradition. Scripture gets "better" as revelation progresses. (Just within the OT the Holy Spirit goes from being an imperaonal force to being right on the verge of being personal with Ezekial, or one of the later prophets. Still far short of the languate in John's gospel.) Assume that there is LOTS of FAR MORE obvious things scripture is shouting to us than the petty literalisms that we Midwesterners discover while waging this rediculous battle amongst ourselves.
You have the same hermanutic going as some of the people on Bob Hill's website.
The Bible is written by a Midwestern American!!!!!!!!!!!
None of us excape this charge completely.
Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 09/22/2002 3:14:24 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 9/22/2002 12:03 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Al,
Back atcha . . .
I'm sorry, but I don't understand the straight-forward meaning of your post; it's laden with cultural terms and idioms that I do not understand. And, too, I note your having an understanding of multiple languages has made it that much harder for me to interpret and understand what you're saying. I'm . . . well, I'm just completely lost with your communication, AL. It's a shame we don't have a common denominator amoung us humans so that regardless of the language we speak, there might be a base by which we'd all be able to get our points across. Shame, isn't it.
From God's Word (quite clear and precise at that) . . .
Deuteronomy 30
11 "For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult (mysterious, hidden read other versions) for you, nor is it out of reach.
12 "It is not in heaven, that you should say, 'Who will go up to heaven for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?'
13 "Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who will cross the sea for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?'
14 "But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it.
Choose Life
15 "See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, and death and adversity;
16 in that I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in His ways and to keep His commandments and His statutes and His judgments, that you may live and multiply, and that the LORD your God may bless you in the land where you are entering to possess it.
17 "But if your heart turns away and you will not obey, but are drawn away and worship other gods and serve them,
18 I declare to you today that you shall surely perish. You will not prolong your days in the land where you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess it.
19 "I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants,
20 by loving the LORD your God, by obeying His voice, and by holding fast to Him; for this is your life and the length of your days, that you may live in the land which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them."
The clarity of God's meaning is unmistakable with, perhaps, the exception of, say, a language deep in the jungles somewhere or out in the middle of the ocean on some unknown island. The common denominator of human communication is the building block that makes language even possible: all of us already possess the innate understanding of what communication is and that we can communicate intelligently; language is simply the means to communicate with what is already inherrent.
In Genesis 11 When God broke the single langauge into multiple languages, God did not destroy the base foundation by which communcation is made possible. He simply confused the people with different tongues. And if no two people spoke the same language, it wouldn't be long before this would be alleviated. Further, if it was groups of people to whom a language was dispersed, seperate, obviously, from the group on the other side of the Tower, it wouldn't be long before there would be some sort of communcation between the two groups; we have the base to overcome such obsticles, and it wasn't God's intention to destroy that base. (We testify to this every day in meetings where many from different language backgrounds can come and have their interpreter interpret what's being said by someone speaking a different language.) God did, however, create a huge obsticle in general and a very huge theological point.
So, to finish up this growing-by-the-minute post, I'll say this: God said what He meant. Anyone can come to understand what God meant in their own language. And where there are those limitations, one may study the originial Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic, an ability alone which testifies to our common communication base.
The open view is not western thinking, it is not eastern thinking. It is not jungle, desert or ocean thinking. It was neither created by those in past times and cultures, nor invented by modernity. It is, however, time-told clearest revelation (okay, in my opinion, at least) of who and what God is in view of what He has revealed of Himself, and to what we, His created order, are in view of how we reveal ourselves. As language is the vehicle conveying the innate communication base we all possess, freedom of choice (within the context God has given it to us) is the vehicle conveying the openess of God and we who are made in His image.
So, take that, AL!  
For the rock-em-sock-em, give em a right hook, Starkman!
Edited by - Starkman on 09/22/2002 5:05:09 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
jlreed
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2002
Total Posts : 17
| Posted 9/22/2002 1:56 PM (GMT -6) | | Hello all!
I am very busy for the next few days. So, my next response could as late as middle of this week.
However, I would like to say something on a personal note. I have been on discussion boards with atheists, humanists, Calvinists, and fideists. I must say, this is the best one by far. Atheists, humanists, and Calvinists are very rude and pompus towards someone like me who is a theist or a believer of free will. Usually, they start off name calling or challenging my faith in God. Humanists are proud and closeminded. The Calvinists would just insult me.
This is very refreshing. To have actual diagoue and not have tempers flare. Sure, we might get intense, but as far open theism is concerned; the adherents are the most friendly chatroom people I have encountered. And for that, I thank you!!!!!!!!!
In Christ,
Jason
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 9/22/2002 4:06 PM (GMT -6) | | Jason, I attend a Christian Reformed (Dutch Calvinist) church; thank you. We are nice people.
(Starkman and I go way back.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Starkman, here is my clear statement:
If we grew up with a variety of languages and cultures mixing around us we would not be so COCKED-SURE that things are as we think they look to us!
"We" is not a four-letter word. (So heal your black eye.)
Everything is obvious once we know about it. But how many unchurched guys down at the bus-barns know, for example, that numbers in the Bible can sometimes be symbolic? Is that, then, "obvious?"
Did Elvis sing "There'll be a whole lot of presuming go'en on"?
Parts of scripture were written in "Neolithic" (New Stone Age) The spiritual meaning is nothing unfamiliar to us this side of the NT. That's because we know how the story ends. But to them then, they only had a vague beginning. All the rest, for them, was on faith.
Expressions--some of them embarrassing to our contemporary churchmen--that would not be "PC" (Jesus calling the Canaanite woman a "dog.") did not draw attention the way they do to us today. Those things were at the time "vehicles." We would do well to get back to the vehicles--the real message--and not embroil ourselves in the distractions of whether God forgets, or whether God changes his opinion, or whether God learns.
God is both unchangeable and changeable. That has always been the understanding of the Church. And it has always been the faith of God's people way back to Abraham, and I presume before.
------------------------------------------
I don't want to be critical. But that usage of Deuteronomy 30 is really horrible.
Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 09/22/2002 9:21:41 PM
That usage of Deuteronomy 30 is really horrible. It ought to be known as the most infamous case of "proof-texting" there is.
Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 09/22/2002 9:35:46 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
jlreed
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2002
Total Posts : 17
| Posted 9/23/2002 3:21 AM (GMT -6) | | Starkman wrote:
quote:
But there's not a reason in the world to take God for what He means when God tells Moses "I'm angry--horribly angry--at Israel; get outta my way because I'm going to destroy them all and I'll restart with you." That's simple, plain language without the need to adjust it because we just don't want to accept the idea that a "transcendant" God can't get mad or be hurt.
Okay. Then in Genesis 3:8-9 when God says, “Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. But the LORD God called to the man, "Where are you?" Do you infer that God did not know where they were? This seems to be simple plain language without the need to adjust it.
Alan Rhoda wrote:
quote:
Furthermore, as one of my professors at Fordham Univ. (Brian Davies, a well-respected Aquinas scholar) continually emphasized, analogy is a LITERAL mode of discourse. When we say "God is good" we mean that God, literally, IS good. The doctrine of analogy comes in at that point to remind us not to conceive of God's perfections in a limited fashion.
Alan,
Well I’m not sure where you got the idea that I deny ‘literal’ discourse. I am supporting the idea of analogical predication. God is non-temporal for a classical theist [which Davies is one]. So, Davies affirms literal God-talk and still adheres to atemporality. So, I don’t understand this charge of misunderstanding. Analogy is used by Aquinas and Davies to explain how terms derived from temporal experience can be applied to a Being who transcends the temporal. And it is that doctrine that I saying is not treated by those who say Geisler is guilty of using the very temporal terms he is denying that Open Theists use. So, I responded that their objections fail to take into account the doctrine of analogy. The argument given by Open Theists is that because all statements by a temporal being are temporal precludes any talk about a non-temporal being. First, this is self-defeating, for it is talk by a temporal being about the non-temporal saying that talk about the non-temporal is not possible by temporal beings. Second, temporal terms can be applied to God [and yes, literally applied to God] by way of analogy.
In point of fact, eternity is a negative doctrine. It states what God is not. For example, eternity, infinity, simplicity, etc. are ways in which God is not, and they are literal terms. God is literally not temporal, finite, composed, etc. We use this kind of talk all the time when we speak about the spiritual. For what is a spirit? It is im-material [i.e., not material]; non-spatial [i.e., does not take up space].
Hence, the objections you raised against my post are not warranted. They make an objection about ‘literal mode of discourse’ which does not apply to anything in my post. Moreover, the fact that you studied under Davies makes it odd that you would think that when I offer analogy as a solution to the problem of God-talk, you would assume that I deny the literal. Maybe you assume that if God-talk is literal, then God must be temporal. But you must know that there are those who also believe that God-talk is literal and belief God to be atemporal.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 9/23/2002 5:26 PM (GMT -6) | | Thanks for your response, Jason. In your recent post you write:
quote:
Well I’m not sure where you got the idea that I deny ‘literal’ discourse. I am supporting the idea of analogical predication. God is non-temporal for a classical theist [which Davies is one]. So, Davies affirms literal God-talk and still adheres to atemporality. So, I don’t understand this charge of misunderstanding.
I don't believe I implied that you, or Geisler, or anyone in particular denies literal discourse. The point I argued for in my post is that Geisler and others who try to account for temporal God-talk via the doctrine of analogy are misusing that doctrine. My argument was basically this:
1. Analogy is a literal mode of discourse (i.e., statements using such terms of God are true as they stand).
2. According to advocates of divine timelessness, temporal God-talk is not literally true of God but literally false.
3. Therefore, temporal God-talk is not analogical but equivocal.
4. Therefore, Geisler and others who try to account for temporal God-talk via the doctrine of analogy are misapplying that doctrine.
quote:
Analogy is used by Aquinas and Davies to explain how terms derived from temporal experience can be applied to a Being who transcends the temporal.
Analogy can be properly applied to account for the application of SOME terms derived from temporal experience (specifically, pure perfections terms like "goodness", "love", etc.). But analogy cannot be properly applied to account for statements like "I will remember their sins no more" in atemporalist terms because on the atemporalist account this statement is not literally true as it stands--God can't literally remember or forget or be about to do something. Rather, the atemporalist has to interpret this as a figurative statement and unpack the metaphor, so to speak, in such a way that all temporal connotations are removed. So one might say that the verse means that God does not hold the sins of the redeemed against them. A fair interpretation, I think, by not one that is licensed by the doctrine of analogy. That doctrine would tell us to interpret this as a literal truth about God such that the future tense of the statement applies to God (i.e., God really will do something). But that would mean that God is temporal, which is not what atemporalists want to say. Therefore, despite claims to the contrary, they are not in fact applying the doctrine of analogy in making sense of such statements.
quote:
The argument given by Open Theists is that because all statements by a temporal being are temporal precludes any talk about a non-temporal being.
Whoever claimed THAT? No open theist that I know of. Certainly there is a sense in which statements by temporal beings are temporal, namely that the statements occur in time. But that implies nothing as to whether we can or cannot refer to a non-temporal being. What counts for meaningfulness is not the temporality of the statement or the temporality of the being making the statement but the temporality of the referent of the statement. I claim that 2+2=4. The "=" there represents an atemporal mode of being. The truth of the claim is unconditioned by time.
quote:
Temporal terms can be applied to God [and yes, literally applied to God] by way of analogy.
Jason, I suspect that you and I are equivocating on our understanding of the phrase "temporal term". You seem to use it to categorize all terms that are acquired or learned through the temporal experiences of temporal beings. In that sense, ALL of our terms are temporal. I use it in a more restricted sense. To me, a term is temporal if it implies some relation of before and after, of sequentiality. Tensed verbs, terms like "after" and "before", and concepts like remembering and forgetting are temporal in this sense, but words like "red", "large", "above", "holy", etc. are not temporal terms. I am claiming that divine atemporality requires that temporal terms in the latter sense do not literally describe God, and therefore, analogy (which is a literal mode of discourse) is irrelevant for accounting for their meaning when applied to God.
Make sense?
God bless,
Alan
Lege, lege, lege, ora, labora, et relege. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 9/24/2002 1:09 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey there, JLReed,
You quoted me with this:
"But there's not a reason in the world to take God for what He means when God tells Moses "I'm angry--horribly angry--at Israel; get outta my way because I'm going to destroy them all and I'll restart with you." That's simple, plain language without the need to adjust it because we just don't want to accept the idea that a "transcendant" God can't get mad or be hurt."
Then you asked this:
"Okay. Then in Genesis 3:8-9 when God says, “Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. But the LORD God called to the man, "Where are you?" Do you infer that God did not know where they were? This seems to be simple plain language without the need to adjust it."
Now, consider what I also said in a post a few posts back:
"Well before I even knew about open theism, I believed that God said what He meant in every way that I would say what I mean. Again, when the obvious kicks in--analogy, metaphor, etc., that's kind of a no-brainer."
Do you really think that when God asked Adam and Eve "Where are you?" that He didn't know where they were? I don't, and I'm sure you don't. Why? Because of what I just quoted from my previous post: it's a no-brainer, and one can read what David said in Psalm 139:1-9 particularly verses 7-9.) Clearly God doesn't loose track of where we are!
But can we find one piece of evidence that God doesn't get mad, angry, upset, hurt? Can we find the Scripture that will lead us to interpret all these kinds of emotions as merely just banal conversation without meaning what they imply, presumably just to make God sound like He, too, can use the terms? No, we'll not find it in Scripture. Consider Ezekiel 6:9 "Then those of you who escape will remember Me among the nations where they are carried captive, because I was crushed by their adulterous heart which as departed from me..." Why should I not believe God's heart has been crushed? Because I can't imagine it so (God couldn't possibly have a heart like us that could be crushed; after all, He's God)? There's no reason in Scripture to conclude otherwise.
Genesis 3:8-0 is a no-brainer. Of course God knew where they were, because He's been very clear elsewise that, as God, He sees all. So the language cannot possibly be taken literally. I believe what God was really saying (probably heard in His voice more than the words) "Okay, what's going on, Adam? Come out and let's deal with it. Why are you hiding (rhetorically)? God knew all along what was going on, obviously.
Well, dinner is almost ready! Pork chops, taters and home-made apple-crisp! Yum! Yak at ya'll later.
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 9/24/2002 1:12 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey AL,
Say, the tone of my last post to you wasn't to kosher, and I'm sorry about that! I was trying to create a kid-gloves sparing post with you, but I don't think I did too well!  Do forgive the Starkman, please!
Okay, now I really have to go; dinner's staring me at the face! 
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 9/24/2002 2:10 PM (GMT -6) | | Starkman asks, in effect: "Doesn't ... God ... get mad, angry, upset, hurt "
Perhaps these four should be taken one at time.
But first you need to collect what you can know about how God's speach to us has taken the form of saying something in ways that can be pictured in familiar ways, yet can be understood to be more anthropopathic than would be the case.
First, in WHAT WAY is God "hurt?" Surely every Christian, on both sides of this stupid debate agree that he does get "hurt." Even if just because it goes with our knowledge that God loves, and God desires.
Then the second thing to do is note the ways that we know of that God does NOT get hurt. In SOME ways the image of God as unchangable are very useful. God does not cease to love. (Humans would stop.) God's love towards Israel was said to be "unfailing." God does not change.
Even speaking particularly of God, in our limited capacity to do so, we note the seeming paradox that God created the world and loved it before doing so; yet nothing in God needed to create, nor changed as a result. This quickly gets beyond what we can know or even begin to think about. And vain imagination and fantasy lurk too near. (So we stop.)
So, yes, I suppose, "Starkman," God does "get mad, be angry, act/become upset, and feel hurt." But we have to go back and discern just (1) how much we mean each one, and (2) in what way, and (3) in what degree.
I vote that "become upset" is the WEAKEST LINK in the list above.
Which one's would YOU vote off, Starkman?
PoW/(o)/Al | | Back to Top | | |
| 36 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:18 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 |
|
|