 |
 | 
Gerry Attrick
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 114
| Posted 5/14/2004 3:02 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
victoryword: However, I dogmatically and emphatically believe that God literally has eyes, hands, a mouth, feet, legs, back parts, etc.
Tom: What a very very strange thing to be dogmatic about. Be dogmatic about God's existence, his goodness, about Christ's deity, the resurrection, and even about our need to be dogmatic about the right things, but that God has physical body parts? Is God male or female? Does he have both penis, breasts, and uterus?
What are you explaining by believing God possesses a physical body? If you grant that God doesn't have phyiscal "wings" and concede that in this case you must interprete the Bible figuratively, then you DO interpret figuratively. What possible case can you make for insisting that discriptions of God's hands and face be understood to mean God possesses a physical body? Just because God "appears" with hands, face, and backside? That seems to be your sole argument here. But this can only seal your case if you first prove it's impossible that God manifest himself in theophany, for if God can show up in theophany then you can't insist that he possess a physical body.
The translators of the GNB would rip their garments and toss ashes into the air over their heads to hear you use their translation of "resemble" in Gen. 1 to mean God has physical body parts. Oh my.
Tom
I find open theists curious and quite telling when they respond to the arguments of one such as Victoryword who argues that God actually forgets based upon Scripture's use of language of forgetting. Curiously open theists resort to the same arguments that they mock and reject when non-open theists use them against the belief that God does not exhaustively know the future with certainty (open theism).
Victoryword has appealed to a passage in Exodus to argue that God has physical body parts. Victoryword, an open theist, seems to be an embarassment to open theists because he strives to be consistent in how he reads and understands the Bible. Thank God for inconsistency because Tom and others are now arguing like an essayist I read in a book that was published last year. The book is Beyond the Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity. The essay is: "Veiled Glory: God's Self-Revelation in Human Likeness--A Biblical Theology of God's Anthropomorphic Self-Disclosure" (pages 149-199). Find the book here: http://tinyurl.com/23xj5 | | Back to Top | | |
|
victoryword
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 5/14/2004 3:16 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
victoryword: However, I dogmatically and emphatically believe that God literally has eyes, hands, a mouth, feet, legs, back parts, etc.
Tom: What a very very strange thing to be dogmatic about. Be dogmatic about God's existence, his goodness, about Christ's deity, the resurrection, and even about our need to be dogmatic about the right things, but that God has physical body parts? Is God male or female? Does he have both penis, breasts, and uterus?
What are you explaining by believing God possesses a physical body? If you grant that God doesn't have phyiscal "wings" and concede that in this case you must interprete the Bible figuratively, then you DO interpret figuratively. What possible case can you make for insisting that discriptions of God's hands and face be understood to mean God possesses a physical body? Just because God "appears" with hands, face, and backside? That seems to be your sole argument here. But this can only seal your case if you first prove it's impossible that God manifest himself in theophany, for if God can show up in theophany then you can't insist that he possess a physical body.
The translators of the GNB would rip their garments and toss ashes into the air over their heads to hear you use their translation of "resemble" in Gen. 1 to mean God has physical body parts. Oh my.
Tom
Now Tom
You dissected a part of my statement and then you added words that I never said. This is MISREPRESENTATION Tom, but I forgive you, but I won't forget  (Just kidding)
Anyway, the rest of my statement that yiu neglected to include said, "I do not believe that a spirit being is just a "mist". The angels are spirits but descriptions are often given of them. Why not God?"
You added something about me saying that God possessed a physical body. Never ONCE did I say that. I said that God had hands, feet, eyes, etc. I said that SPIRIT BEINGS have these things. Read the descriptions of spirit beings written in the Bible. Are they all just "mists" floating around or are there avid descriptions given of them? Doesn't God have a throne that He sits upon? Aren't some beast that surround this throne crying "Holy, Holy, Holy"? (See Isa. 6 and Rev. 4).
So, since God "appears" with these "body parts" (again for lack of a better term) you seem to imply that He can't have them so this is metaphorical?
I think this conversation is amusing 
If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
victoryword
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 5/14/2004 3:37 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by feelinahole
It would seem to me, VW, that if you are going to be literal about such things, you need to be literal about ALL physical descriptions. Otherwise, you are not being consistant. And, in all frankness, you are not a literalist. Because as soon as you say one part is metaphor, then you are not a literalist. You are now making a judgment on scripture, just as Sanders did.
Feelinahole
I believe that I explained this before. First, I made this statement in a previous post:
quote:
"The Bible should always be read LITERALLY except where it is clear that the Scripture is metaphoric. In such cases, one must attempt to find the literal meaning of the metaphor."
So yes, I am a literalist except where the Scripture is obviously not being literal (empahasis on obvious.
In the post that you are currently commenting on I made this statement:
quote:
"Since no appearance or visible manifestation recorded in Scripture ever included "wings" then I will have to say that here is where we see the metaphor and look for it's literal meaning. Psalm 91 uses God's "wings" as a metaphor for His protection over us."
Now if you can show any passage in the Bible that shows any manifestation of God in Heaven or on earth as having "wings" then I might re-look at this position.
quote:
Originally posted by feelinahole
I would how God could be everywhere, if he in fact has a body. Jesus certainly could not as a human. How could God? Simply because angels appear and are described does not mean they possess a body. That is what is meant by being a spirit.
How did I know this would come up? Perhaps I possess divine foreknowledge
Let me ask you a question: Did Jesus ascend to Heaven in a PHYSICAL BODY? (Note: I am not saying that the Father and the Holy Spirit possess physical bodies so please, no one misrepresent me again)
Yet, this same Jesus who ascended to Heaven to sit down at the right HAND of the Father said, "lo, I will be with you always, even to the ends of the ages." He also said that "if two or three are gathered together in His name, there He is in the midst of us" and furthermore, He said that He and the Father would come and make His abode in us. Furthermore, this same Jesus is said to be working with the apostles with signs following after His ascension in His physical body (Matt. 18:18-20; 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-20; John 16).
So now you tell ME, how is it that Jesus could retain His omnipresence even though He is in complete possession of a PHYSICAL body?
If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
victoryword
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 5/14/2004 3:44 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
quote:
Originally posted by victoryword
I like Sanders. Along with the aforementioned book in this post, I also purchased Sander and Hall's "Does God Have a Future". Heck, a lot more cordial and loving to one another than James White and Dave Hunt's "Debating Calvinism" (In the latter book I thought those two guys would have enjoyed burning one another at a stake). Anyway, Sander's brings some very good points to the table and, from my perspective, was able to refute Hall. Also, much easier to read than his "The God Who Risks" though I did like the book. Have you read his online article, "Heffalumps and Heresies" yet? It's an excellent answer to critics of the OV.
Troy,
I haven't read the article; I will have to look at it. Do you have a link?
For more on Sanders on the issue of metaphor, look up the chapter in Does God Have a Future? in which he discusses metaphors. VERY interesting and helpful. Also, look in the index of TGWR for "anthropomorphism," "metaphor," and (I think) "symbolism."
Be blessed,
John
Here it is John
Here is the HTML format:
http://journalofbiblicalstudies.org/Issue5/on_heffalumps_and_heresies.htm
Here's the ".PDF" version (in which you will need Acrobat Reader).
http://journalofbiblicalstudies.org/Issue5/Heffalumps_and_Heresies.pdf
If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
victoryword
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 5/14/2004 3:48 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by moon_river_j
quote:
Originally posted by victoryword
Went to Gordon college bookstore (in Massechusettes) yesterday and found an interesting book. The title is Knowing the Unknowable God by James R. Lucas (A professor at Rockhurst University). Has anyone ever heard of this author or read this book?
In the book, he deals with what he calls paradoxes concerning God and attempts to help the reader understand them. One of the "paradoxes" that Open Theists might find interesting is Lucas' explanation concerning the God who knows all things, yet this same God chooses to forget certain things (particularly our past sin). The most interesting thing is that though Lucas believes that God knows all things, past, present, and future, He actually chooses to limit His knowledge of our future actions so that we could engage in reciprical relationships with Him. He believes that if God held on to knowledge of our past sins or knew what ugly things we might do later that this would make it difficult for both Him and us to have a real genuine relationship. He would not be able to look at us without being repulsed at what we have done or what He knows we are going to do.
He also has a chapter on the "Changeless God who experiences change" as well as some other paradoxes. I haven't read that chapter yet (haven't finished reading the one on God forgetting).
Anyway, thought some might find this info of interest.
Victory,
Would this be the view known as molinism (spelling?). A friend recently told me (smiling) to stay away from anything that ends in "ism" or "ist" so I've told him that I hold to the Open VIEW.
Jo-Anne
Hi Joanne
I am not sure if Lucas is advocating Milinism. I really thought that he was an Open Theist until I got to one chapter in his book in which he misrepresented the OV (but still uses many of the same Scriptures and statements that OVers use to present their case). Furthermore, he cites people like Dallas Willard and William Hasker favorably to support his viewpoint. I always thought that Hasker was OV so Lucas quotaing him leaves me scratching my head 
If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
victoryword
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 5/14/2004 3:50 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Gerry Attrick
quote:
Originally posted by TGB
victoryword: However, I dogmatically and emphatically believe that God literally has eyes, hands, a mouth, feet, legs, back parts, etc.
Tom: What a very very strange thing to be dogmatic about. Be dogmatic about God's existence, his goodness, about Christ's deity, the resurrection, and even about our need to be dogmatic about the right things, but that God has physical body parts? Is God male or female? Does he have both penis, breasts, and uterus?
What are you explaining by believing God possesses a physical body? If you grant that God doesn't have phyiscal "wings" and concede that in this case you must interprete the Bible figuratively, then you DO interpret figuratively. What possible case can you make for insisting that discriptions of God's hands and face be understood to mean God possesses a physical body? Just because God "appears" with hands, face, and backside? That seems to be your sole argument here. But this can only seal your case if you first prove it's impossible that God manifest himself in theophany, for if God can show up in theophany then you can't insist that he possess a physical body.
The translators of the GNB would rip their garments and toss ashes into the air over their heads to hear you use their translation of "resemble" in Gen. 1 to mean God has physical body parts. Oh my.
Tom
I find open theists curious and quite telling when they respond to the arguments of one such as Victoryword who argues that God actually forgets based upon Scripture's use of language of forgetting. Curiously open theists resort to the same arguments that they mock and reject when non-open theists use them against the belief that God does not exhaustively know the future with certainty (open theism).
Victoryword has appealed to a passage in Exodus to argue that God has physical body parts. Victoryword, an open theist, seems to be an embarassment to open theists because he strives to be consistent in how he reads and understands the Bible. Thank God for inconsistency because Tom and others are now arguing like an essayist I read in a book that was published last year. The book is Beyond the Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity. The essay is: "Veiled Glory: God's Self-Revelation in Human Likeness--A Biblical Theology of God's Anthropomorphic Self-Disclosure" (pages 149-199). Find the book here: http://tinyurl.com/23xj5
Gerry
Let's just say that history often repeats itself
Everyone:
I'll be back later. I spent more time this morning on this than I planned and I really don't want to overlook anyone's posts. You ll deserve responses.
If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 5/14/2004 5:40 AM (GMT -6) | | I would wonder how God could possess arms legs and a face yet not possess a human body? I would also have to ask which of the three persons possesses these features? The Father, the Son, The Spirit? Does Jesus now possess a body and arms, legs and a face, but no body? Does the Father possess arms, legs, a face, but no butt, or sexual organs?
I am not trying to be humorous, VW, I am really trying to understand what you are proposing. Is the Father confined to this face in the sense that he could be recognized in a certain way if we, say, saw him on a street corner? Is he confined to space as we are because he has a face, arms and legs, or is he some sort of being that has floating parts? Could you please give me more of a formula of how all this works as far as the Trinity is concerned?
AS far as Jesus, I believe he ascended in a spiritual body that we will possess one day. However, he was unique among the Godhead because he became human (unless you believe all the Godhead became human). Jesus retained his omnipresense because he was both God AND man. Or are you somehow suggesting that the entire Trinity became man?
BTW, why do you find this topic amusing? I don't. I think its a pretty important issue as far as how we view God. Do you not believe such things are worth discussing, or do you not take other points seriously?
Gerry, why do you think VW view is an embarressment to other open theists? Did anyone ever say that? Isn't that a rather rude statement to start a discussion with? I have read most of "Beyond The Bounds." If you are interested in discussing that or other issues, by all means jump in. But I don't consider VW view embarressing. I simply don't understand it fully.
Oh, one more point, VW. Do you believe God puts on and takes off his face, etc, since you don't believe he has an actual body? If so, what is different from your view and the view that God is spirit and "Appears" in human form?
BTW, VW, I believe most Christians are literalists (at least as far as I know) under your definition. I am not certain why you use the term to describe yourself, given such. | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 5/14/2004 5:44 AM (GMT -6) | | Gerry, I would also suggest in evaluating open theism, you read books by open theists as well. It helps to get their actual perspective on the issue.
Also Gerry, could you please point out an instance when an open theist "mocked" an opposing view. I know in the past I have not always been loving, so I would be curious to view such an occurance so I will know what it is like and try not to do it in the future. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PhilTheThrill
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 95
| Posted 5/14/2004 6:28 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Gerry Attrick
I find open theists curious and quite telling when they respond to the arguments of one such as Victoryword who argues that God actually forgets based upon Scripture's use of language of forgetting. Curiously open theists resort to the same arguments that they mock and reject when non-open theists use them against the belief that God does not exhaustively know the future with certainty (open theism).
Victoryword has appealed to a passage in Exodus to argue that God has physical body parts. Victoryword, an open theist, seems to be an embarassment to open theists because he strives to be consistent in how he reads and understands the Bible.
A. We believe God does know the future as it truly is - uncertain, unsettled. OVT is a statement about the future itself, not just God's knowledge of it. If the future is unsettled, how can God know it as settled?
B. In any event, I view this conversation in a much less sinister light than you seem to put it. We have a passage that says something that seems difficult to interperet. It's an analysis of the idea of God knowing things and what does it mean to remember. In what way is forget used? These are valid questions. Many of us feel that God's not remembering our sins in more in the "not holding them against us" sense and VW thinks he literally doesnt remember them.
As you may have read at least in my last post, I didn't see anything glaringly wrong with his view, I just didnt share it. I read the passage differently, no big deal. We're just having an intellectual exercise in exegesis and literary analysis.
I'd love to know how our arguments against literal "theo-amnesia" are inconsistent with arguments for OVT. Is it because we're willing to take one passage as literal and another as figurative? If so, it's because we can make a good case why we ought to do so. The fact is that the word/concept "Remember" has different uses. It can mean to recall a past event from your memory or it can mean to bring it up again, per the article TGB posted. However, when God says "I thought this event would happen but it did not happen", you'd have to make a similar case to say it's not literal, which is more difficult because that phraseology is not used in less literal ways elsewhere. I'm not even saying you couldnt, I'm saying you didn't. So, just accusing us of intellectual dishonesty out of nowhere is pretty lame.
A better tactic would've been to quote a few people's arguments against theo-amnesia and then say "You know, I may be wrong, but isn't this inconsistent with the argument for OVT which says..." and then give one of our arguments for OVT. Then we can actually argue a fact or a statement instead of you just blanketly condemning us as inconsistent. It doesnt accomplish anything.
The other thing is, if VW is right and God has a literal body with literal hands etc., it still doesn't radically change my view of Christianity or salvation. Even if God has a literal face that literally smiles, I still believe in true libertarian free will and reject the idea of total depravity, divine foreordination, etc. I wouldn't live my life any different if God had ankles and thumbs. So even if you think that an OVer has to imagine God having a literal body, that's fine because it doesn't change anything. YOU still have to make the case that the Open View isn't valid, and i'd love to see it. You'll have to give an account for all the verses that show the future as partly unsettled, you'll still have to give a defense for reading the Bible with preconceived notions that God is a certain way, you'll still have to prove the philosophy is incorrect.
We welcome challenges and true debate, what we dont like is drive-by shooting style attacks. | | Back to Top | | |
|
victoryword
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 5/14/2004 6:46 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by feelinahole
I would wonder how God could possess arms legs and a face yet not possess a human body? I would also have to ask which of the three persons possesses these features? The Father, the Son, The Spirit? Does Jesus now possess a body and arms, legs and a face, but no body? Does the Father possess arms, legs, a face, but no butt, or sexual organs?
Gee whiz Feelinahole, I really think you are reading more into my post than what is there and you are making way too many assumptions. I never said that God does NOT possess any of the features you mention. How did you derive such from my post? Do I have to give explicit details in every single post?
Why is having a "body" necessarily have to be a human body? Are you telling me that having bodily features must be limited to only the PHYSICAL realm? That's silly in light of Scripture.
Let's look at some Scriptures and you tell if these are metaphors or should they be taken literal:
In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly. (Isa. 6:1, 2)
Was this a literal throne that the Lord was literally sitting upon or is this a metaphor of something? If so, what is the literal meaning of the metaphor? What about the seraphims? Were those literal descriptions of them? If so, why them and not God? If not then what did this mean?
And the four beasts had each of them six wings about [him]; and [they were] full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come. And when those beasts give glory and honour and thanks to him that sat on the throne, who liveth for ever and ever, (Rev. 4:8, 9)
Same questions apply as above.
So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. (Mark 16:19)
Did the above literally happen? Is Jesus literally sitting on the right hand of God or is this simply anthropomorphic language?
But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God. (Acts 7:55, 56)
Now did Stephen LITERALLY see this or was this simply a metaphor God was giving him before they stoned him?
quote:
Originally posted by feelinahole
I am not trying to be humorous, VW, I am really trying to understand what you are proposing. Is the Father confined to this face in the sense that he could be recognized in a certain way if we, say, saw him on a street corner? Is he confined to space as we are because he has a face, arms and legs, or is he some sort of being that has floating parts? Could you please give me more of a formula of how all this works as far as the Trinity is concerned?
Why do you need a formula? If Scripture is insufficient to convince then no man-made formula that I could come up with will help you? I already showed you Scripture that avidly describes God with what we call "bodily features." It's up to you to determine whether you believe God means exactly what He says about Himself or if you feel that God needs theologians to interpret His Word for Him.
It takes a theologian to tell us that God's Word does not mean what it says. Tell the average unstudied Christian that the Bible is God's Word and everything in it is true and they won't have the difficulty in accepting certain things that many of us "learned" folks have. Most Christians don't know what an anthropomorphism is and could care less.
Furthermore, no real answer was given to me concerning the fact that Jesus went to Heaven with BODILY FEATURES. You try to remedy this below by stating it was a spiritual body but that does not solve your dilemma because now you have to explain why God does not have a spiritual body with the same ability to be omnipresent as Jesus claims to be.
quote:
Originally posted by feelinahole
AS far as Jesus, I believe he ascended in a spiritual body that we will possess one day. However, he was unique among the Godhead because he became human (unless you believe all the Godhead became human). Jesus retained his omnipresense because he was both God AND man. Or are you somehow suggesting that the entire Trinity became man?
BTW, why do you find this topic amusing? I don't. I think its a pretty important issue as far as how we view God. Do you not believe such things are worth discussing, or do you not take other points seriously?
If I didn't find it amusing then I would get upset at how often you make suggestions in your posts that insinuate things that are not in mine. Better to be amused by it then upset, don't you think? Furthermore, since a belief or disbelief in any of this has no effect on anyone's salvation (at least not on mine) then why should I take this stuff too seriously? I don't think God will toss me into hell for taking His Word seriously, do you?
Anyway, as far as Jesus having what you call a "spirit body", that really does not, as I point out, solve your dilemma because Jesus denies that he came back as simply a "spirit":
And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace [be] unto you. But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. (Luke 24:36-39)
Now, you would not want me to accuse you of Gnosticism now would you? Gnostics denied that Jesus had a LITERALLY BODILY ressurection. However, I am not going to treat your post the way you treated mine.
So, if you cannot give ME a better "formula" for explaining Jesu' omnipresence in spite of the fact that He experienced a PHYSICAL BODILY ressurection (we must stick with the Bible rather than theories here) then why should I offer you one for the Father?
quote:
Originally posted by feelinahole
Oh, one more point, VW. Do you believe God puts on and takes off his face, etc, since you don't believe he has an actual body? If so, what is different from your view and the view that God is spirit and "Appears" in human form?
Please tell me you're not serious in asking this question.
quote:
Originally posted by feelinahole
BTW, VW, I believe most Christians are literalists (at least as far as I know) under your definition. I am not certain why you use the term to describe yourself, given such.
Simply because I was asked how literal do I take the Bible, so I gave the answer.
If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/14/2004 10:21 AM (GMT -6) | | Gerry: I find open theists curious and quite telling when they respond to the arguments of one such as victoryword who argues that God actually forgets based upon Scripture's use of language of forgetting.
Tom: God actually does what the author, writing Hebrew within the context of a promissory covenant, means by “forget” and not necessarily everything that comes to mind by the English “forget.” That’s my point. Another example would be the thief on the cross asking Jesus to “remember me when you come into your kingdom.” This does not, nor should it, mean that the thief expected Jesus to first wipe the memory of his conversation with the thief from his mind so that that he could then “remember” it, as if “remember” here can’t possibly make sense without a prior loss (or ‘forfeiture’ in victoryword’s case) of memory. The thief is simply asking Jesus to “include” him in the blessings of his kingdom when the time comes. He doesn’t want to be left out. To be remembered by God, in covenantal terms, is to be included in the blessings of the covenant. It doesn’t imply a prior loss or forfeiture of knowledge.
I provided what I thought was a sound argument for why God’s literally forgetting in the sense victoryword is arguing undermines God’s exhaustive knowledge of even the present. If you think there’s a hole in that specific argument, fire away.
Gerry: Curiously open theists resort to the same arguments that they mock and reject when non-open theists use them against the belief that God does not exhaustively know the future with certainty (open theism).
Tom: And what arguments might those be Gerry? I do challenge (not “mock”) the argument that the Bible describes God as knowing from eternity all that ‘shall’ (determinately) every come to pass. God is sometimes described as knowing the future this way. But he’s also described as knowing the future in conditional and indeterminate terms, what might and might not come to pass. I simply don’t know of any prior reason, any other theological/biblical commitments, that suggest to me we ought to conclude that the passages that describe God knowing the future as “determinately the case” are literal and exhaustively account for how God knows the future, while those that describe him as knowing the future as “indeterminately the case” are to be taken figuratively.
I do have good reasons for believing God does not have a physical body and that references to God’s eyes and face therefore ought to be understood as metaphors. I don’t have to mock the reasoning that leads me to question whether or not the Bible’s descriptions of God knowing an open future are literal in order to conclude that the Bible’s descriptions God’s eyes, ears, and face are not literal.
Nobody has defined “literal” here either, so that’s hampering the whole discussion.
Gerry: Victoryword has appealed to a passage in Exodus to argue that God has physical body parts. Victoryword, an open theist, seems to be an embarassment to open theists because he strives to be consistent in how he reads and understands the Bible.
Tom: Which open theists are embarrassed by victoryword’s belief that God has quasi-physical (victory word wants to now deny that these are “physical” body parts) body parts? It doesn’t embarrass me that he believes that. The point I was making is that “consistent” doesn’t mean always interpreting the Bible’s language literally.
Gerry: Thank God for inconsistency because Tom…
Tom: And what might the inconsistency be? By all means, don’t leave me in the dark.
-----------------------
victoryword: You added something about me saying that God possessed a physical body. Never ONCE did I say that. I said that God had hands, feet, eyes, etc. I said that SPIRIT BEINGS have these things. Read the descriptions of spirit beings written in the Bible.
Tom: This is precisely the point. The descriptions are given by people to whom angles appeared in visions or dreams. So if they’re not physical body parts, they’re…? Immaterial (?) body parts? They’re what we would SEE if we could see them in the spiritual realm? Whatever floats yer boat victory. I have less than zero interest in contemplating or arguing about what actual spiritual “form” immaterial beings possess. I’d certainly never invest energy in being “dogmatic” about such questions.
victoryword: Are they all just "mists" floating around or are there avid descriptions given of them?
Tom: A mist is a material substance, and since “spirit” beings (angels and God) are immaterial, I wouldn’t say they’re mists. That they reveal themselves to our minds’ eye in visions and dreams or apparitions as possessing bodies (or being animal like, as they are sometimes seen in visions--Ezekiel) is hardly (I think) meant to encourage us to speculate on what sort of literal but non-physical form their body parts take. In the end, I don’t see the whole point of this discussion. Is there some point about God, how he relates to us, or how we live in and for him, that our knowing or arguing for the literal spiritual form of God’s body helps make?
victoryword: Doesn't God have a throne that He sits upon?
Tom: Why in the world think so? I don’t think so, no. I think this is simply figurative language for the exercise of God’s authority and rule in the universe. That God possesses authority and that he exercises it in ruling the universe IS LITERALLY TRUE and THAT’S the point of the figure. But what’s important here, victoryword, is this: What is lost in terms of truth regarding God (who he is, how he relates to us, etc.) if God’s “throne” is nothing but a metaphor, an analogy taken from our world to express something literally true and very real about God (namely, the exercise of his authority and kingdom)? What have you lost if this is the case? On the other hand, what truth beyond this is gained by insisting that God’s throne is a literal throne made of literal spiritual materials and that God actually puts his spiritual butt on it?
victoryword: Aren't some beasts that surround this throne crying "Holy, Holy, Holy"?
Tom: There are beings (whose composition and form in reality it would be a waste of time to try to guess and which knowing wouldn’t make the tiniest difference to living and loving like we need to) whose particular placement around the throne and particular make-up are, I think, more likely (given apocalyptic literature) to be figurative descriptions of spiritual beings and the realities and relationships they engage in which affect our world too (regarding worship, the exercise of God’s rule, the administration of the spiritual world, and spiritual warfare). Aren’t these the realities the text is taking us to? Isn’t that where it’s at? So what is lost here if you were to NOT be so dogmatic that God has a literal body that he sits in a literal throne? If these “beasts” actually look quite different in their spiritual reality than their literary descriptions suggests, what of it? Who cares? What’s here of any value worth being dogmatic on? And if the author WANTED to point to spiritual beings, pure and simple, and the realities they engage in on God’s behalf (regarding worship, the exercise of God’s rule, the administration of the spiritual world, and spiritual warfare) using figurative descriptions, how could he do so in a way you would recognize without denying they’re figurative?
victoryword: So, since God "appears" with these "body parts" (again for lack of a better term) you seem to imply that He can't have them so this is metaphorical?
Tom: OK, let me try to explain why you’re insisting that references to God’s body parts are to be interpreted literally (even if literal spiritual “form” and not physical form is meant) as opposed to interpreting them figuratively is unsound. Let’s pick God’s “face” as an example. There are lots of examples of God “hiding his face” from people, as well as examples of the complement of this, or God “showing his face” to someone. If you interpret God’s “hiding his face” literally as God literally hiding from our view the spiritual form of his body part (in this case, his face) then I’d like to ask: When was it NOT the case that THIS face was hidden from you? When COULD you see God’s literal spiritual-body part? Was THIS literal face of God every viewable to you? What WASN’T hidden from us before God chose to hide his literal body part from us? Had anybody ever seen it? No. Can anybody see THIS? No. We’re clearly told that “no man has seen God at any time.” If that’s true, then what new bit of information is added by interpreting God’s “hiding his face” literally? This is the literal face that God is now hiding from you…as opposed to…to what? To your seeing it? And when was the literal spiritual form of God’s actual “face” ever NOT hidden from our view?
How about God “showing us his face”? Interpreted literally, this would outright contradict John’s own claim that “no one has seen God at any time.” God’s “literally” showing us his “literal” face would mean we get to see with our literal eyes the original divine form of God’s own face. But doesn’t God tell Moses no one can see his face and live? Doesn’t John tell us “No one has ever seen God at any time”? What, pray tell, can it then mean to have God literally “hide” the real, spiritual form of his face from us if we can’t literally see it anyhow?
I suggest that the meaning of the expression “God turns his face from us” is figurative and has nothing whatsoever to do with a literal hiding from our view what is by God’s own admission impossible for us to see anyway (that is, the form of God’s literal face—whatever that is). It makes no sense to say you’re going to literally hide from people what everyone knows can’t possibly be literally seen by anyone anyhow because of nature of the case. “God hides his face” means God removes his favor from us, not God literally prohibits us from seeing the spiritual form of one of his body parts. It’s a manner of speaking, a figure of speech, used to express God’s displeasure with somebody. But this meaning is precisely what you rule out if you interpret the phrase literally, for literally speaking all that would then be said is “we can’t see the real, spiritual body part of God’s face.” And I reply, “Duh. Of course that’s hidden from us. Nothing new there. God himself said we could never see THAT, so what new bit of truth is added when God says he’s ‘hiding his face from us’?” Nothing. Nothing about relationship. Nothing about favor or displeasure. Nothing of covenant or responsibility. In the case of “God hiding his face,” the literal interpretation is a meaningless dead end. It tells us nothing whatsoever about God’s attitude toward us.
Taking it figuratively, however, the phrase comes alive. It reflects a change in the status of the relationship between two people. Specifically, it express God’s displeasure. We even use it today in Arabic to express displeasure. That this is the meaning of the phrase is self-evident and is confirmed by the—I’m sorry to say—silliness of trying to insist on a strict literal meaning of the terms.
Another quick example. In Ps. 13.1 David asks God, "How long will you forget me?" OK, go literal with this. God has literally forgotten David. Not some past act of his, but David himself. God doesn’t know who David is or that he even exists. He’s forgotten him. How? Perhaps God chose to strike from his mind all past AND PRESENT (note the tenses involved) knowledge of David’s existence. Sorry, but I have a hard time even taking the literalist at all seriously here. Even if David incorrectly believed God literally had forgotten he even existed, he wouldn’t be praying this prayer. How do you make a God who doesn’t know you exist know you exist? But that’s what the literalists have David doing here.
What’s Ps. 13.1 mean? It’s the language of ancient Semitic covenants. To ask your covenant partner “How long will you forget me?” is not to suppose your partner has literally forgotten you and has no knowledge of you whatsoever. It is rather to ask, “When are you going to start treating me better? Why are things so bad for me?” “Forget” in this instance demands that one believe God has NOT literally forgotten David. It entails the belief that God sees and knows but that his actions are ambiguous and difficult to square with covenant promises.
Lastly, in arguing as I have against interpreting divine body parts literally, have I as Gerry has argued I have, “resorted to the same arguments that [open theists] mock and reject when non-open theists use them against the belief that God does not exhaustively know the future with certainty”? Have I, as he’s thanked God for, been “inconsistent.” He hasn’t actually spelled out what I’ve done that’s so “inconsistent,” so I can only guess. I’m guessing it goes something like this:
1. Non-open theists take some things literally and some things figuratively. They take “God is holy” literally and “God spreads his wings over us” figuratively.
2. Non-open theists take passages describing God knowing the future as that which is determinately the case to happen (viz., closed or settled) literally, the way they take “God is holy.”
3. Non-open theists take passages describing God knowing the future as that which is indeterminately the case to happen (viz., open) figuratively, the way they take “God spreads his wings over us.”
An open theist comes along and agrees with (1), “God is holy” IS literal and “God spreads his wings over us” IS figurative. But the open theist then asks, why must those passages in (2) that describe God’s knowledge of the future be taken literally while those in (3) are to be taken figuratively? There’s nothing in the text itself that tells us this. Like victoryword says, it’s not so “obvious” that God can’t do or be what’s described (as is the case with his having “wings”). So, why? And, furthermore, what happens to the meaning of those passages in (3) if they’re interpreted figuratively as anthropomorphisms? This is what’s objected to. Even if the passages in question are interpreted figuratively, they’re still reality-depicting language. They say something truthful about God. “God spreads his wings over us” is figurative, yes, but it’s not untrue. There is something of the divine side of the relationship being literally held out to us in this figure. In the case of “God covering us with his wings” we do the math instinctively: “God protects us from harm and takes care of us.” THAT is literally true and THAT is the meaning of the FIGURE/metaphor. If one wants to deposit all those passages in (3) that describe God knowing the future as open into the account of anthropomorphisms (like God’s wings) then we still are faced with the task of saying what is the abiding reality regarding God which is held out to us in the figurative expression of an open future. What truth about God is revealed to us by the Bible’s description of God as facing an open future, expecting what doesn’t come to pass, and regretting decisions he’s made? These are the tar pits that sank the kings of EDF.
In arguing against interpreting the passages in (3) figuratively (against the classical view of God’s foreknowledge), Gerry thinks I now have no ground upon which I can argue against taking God’s eyes, face, and hands literally. But this is just something Gerry would like to be true. But it doesn’t follow at all. None of what I as an open theist object to in the classical treatment of the settled and open passages in the Bible is in turn used by me in arguing against victoryword that God’s face, hands, and eyes are figurative. On the contrary, I’m approaching things on the basis of the same fundamental rule: Go with the literal if at all possible. That’s the ground-floor option. And it’s the way we do language every day of our lives. Does the literal make sense? Does it communicate well given its context? Does it fit existentially? Can the literal be related to meaningfully and lived out with integrity? Does taking it literally conflict with some other truth of Scripture that we’re NOT in doubt about? If not, then fine. Rejoice in the literal! But if there is some conflict, if the literal meaning doesn’t make sense, then consider the figurative. If the figurative doesn’t make sense, consider the literal. That seems to be the rule I try to consistently apply in the case of passages describing God’s knowledge of and relationship to the future, on the one hand, and in the case of God’s body parts (eyes, face, and hands) on the other hand. In the former case, the rule suggests to me the literal interpretation makes perfect sense (while the figurative communicates no meaning I am able to discern). Thus, God knows the future as partly open and partly settled. But the same rule (not a mocking of it, and not an inconsistent reapplication of it) in the case of God’s body parts suggests to me that these be taken figuratively because the literal interpretation is both ridiculous and contradicts other passages describing God about which I’m not in doubt (i.e., “God is spirit” and “no one has ever seen God at any time”).
Point is, friends, we ALL do this. We all begin with the literal and then decide whether or not the literal makes sense (logical, existential, theological). If it doesn’t, we ALL opt for the figurative. And we’re all thus far consistent. It’s the role that presuppositions, tradition, exegesis, and livelihood all play in deciding what “sense” we decide there is in the literal and/or figurative interpretations of language and thus which interpretation we go with. But no one can be accused of being inconsistent for taking some passages literally and others figuratively.
Loving it,
Tom
PS Hasker is 100% an open viewer | | Back to Top | | |
|
victoryword
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 5/14/2004 11:07 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by feelinahole
Apparently (as in our previous discussion about the word of God) VW, you do not like to discuss the implications of your views.
You seem to be good at making accusations about me. Why not answer the questions I posed to you? Is it YOU that don't like discussing the implications of my views. I have met you with Scripture and reason and all that I receive in return is you telling me that I don't like discussing the implications of my views. Does that really make sense?
quote:
Originally posted by feelinahole
It would seem that you hold to something that you truly have not thought out very well.
Again, I have shown you SCRIPTURE - Scripture and reason that you fail to refute. Yet you tell ME that I have not thought things out very well. Amusing.
quote:
Originally posted by feelinahole
As such you seem threathened by someone asking you to actually make your views coherent. Since I do not want to "upset" you, I will leave you to the previous question.
Actually if I were threatened I would not be on this forum and I would not be offering my viewpoint. However, I do admittedly get irritated when things are implied about my views that I did not state. Believe it or not I have kept that irritation well under control, though you might not think so.
quote:
Originally posted by feelinahole
BTW, we are ALL theologians once we start interpreting scripture. Theologians do not tell us what the Bible doesn't say (how sadly cynical). Most theologians try to figure out what the Bible says. Most theologians I know are honest, god loving people. What kind of theologians do you know (besides yourself).
You knew what I meant so please don't give me the age old common "we are all theologians" line. Some Scripture is just plain and clear and needs no interpretation.
quote:
Originally posted by feelinahole
Everyone interprets scripture, VW.
See previous comments
quote:
Originally posted by feelinahole
BTW, I was not assuming what you believe. If you read over what I wrote, I was asking you about your beliefs. You know, actual questions. There is a true difference. Those secure in their beliefs are not threathened by questions.
Here is some examples of your questions:
Does Jesus now possess a body and arms, legs and a face, but no body? Does the Father possess arms, legs, a face, but no butt, or sexual organs?
Do you believe God puts on and takes off his face, etc, since you don't believe he has an actual body?
Perhaps I may be reading them wrong and you don't mean them in the way that I am thinking. It just seems that there is some difficulty in you taking the Scripture for exactly what it says. I gave you God's Word on the matter. You decide the rest on your own. I am not about to philosophize and theologize something that Scripture clearly addresses or guess at create a theology to address something that it doesn't.
If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/14/2004 1:03 PM (GMT -6) | | victoryword: One of the things that is beginnig to bother me though is that Open Theist are becoming like Calvinists and Arminians in interpretting as figurative without any real Scriptural authority what seems to go against their own concept of God.
Tom: You're not going to find "any real Scriptural authority" telling you "take this expression literally" and "take that expression figuratively." You're in this one with everybody else. WE ALL, with our minds and language and experiences and communities, AND--yes--our concepts of God, have to make sense of what God is saying to us through the Scriptures. Our concept of God BOTH informs our beliefs and interpretation and is informed by our beliefs and interpretation. It's a delicate dance. But nobody avoids it, including you.
Like I said, it seems to me that beginning with the literal and only considering the figurative when the literal either is impossible, meaningless, or contradicts some clearer belief or truth about which we are not in doubt is as natural and built-in a way of communicating and retreiving meaning as is breathing in and out. If we can't assume the literal and only consider the figurative when the literal doesn't work, then I submit (along with Nick Wolterstorff) that communication would be impossible.
If you find that a literal interpretation of divine body parts is meaningful and doesn't conflict with anything else the Bible teaches about God, then I'm happy for ya. My reasons for concluding against the literal and for the figurative when it comes to divine body parts were clearly expressed (I hope). I didn't simply conclude for the literal because my concept of God didn't allow it. You can't read what I wrote and get that. Heck, if I was just interested in referencing "my own concept of God" in disregard for the authority of Scripture, I could do that in one sentence ("Hey, God doesn't have literal body parts because my concept of God won't allow it"). I wouldn't need to blab on and on trying to be specific and careful.
Gotta run,
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
victoryword
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 5/14/2004 3:12 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom
Due to time I will tackle part of your post and eal with the rest later.
quote:
Originally posted by TGB
I provided what I thought was a sound argument for why God’s literally forgetting in the sense victoryword is arguing undermines God’s exhaustive knowledge of even the present. If you think there’s a hole in that specific argument, fire away.
I am sure you felt your arguemnt was "sound" but for a person like me, a refutation must include something other than a philosophical dissertation that says why a Scripture cannot be read for exactly what it says.
Nevertheless, I am not dogmatic about the "God forgetting" thing. I am still looking into it and you guys are helping me with the dialogues we have going. However, it just seems to me that many here simply do not believe that God really means what He says and that what He says needs constant reinterpretation.
quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Nobody has defined “literal” here either, so that’s hampering the whole discussion.
Let's start with a definition from www.dictionary.com
Being in accordance with, conforming to, or upholding the exact or primary meaning of a word or words.
Word for word; verbatim: a literal translation.
Avoiding exaggeration, metaphor, or embellishment; factual; prosaic: a literal description; a literal mind.
Consisting of, using, or expressed by letters: literal notation.
Conforming or limited to the simplest, nonfigurative, or most obvious meaning of a word or words.
quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Tom: Which open theists are embarrassed by victoryword’s belief that God has quasi-physical (victory word wants to now deny that these are “physical” body parts) body parts? It doesn’t embarrass me that he believes that. The point I was making is that “consistent” doesn’t mean always interpreting the Bible’s language literally.
I am not sure why an object in the spirit realm cannot seem to have any shape or form if I listen to the view of most people here. Wasn't the tabernacle of Moses a pattern of things in Heaven? Is Heaven a physical place? Of course not. Yet, don't things take shape and form in Heaven?
How about the rich man in Luke 16? Did he not still have "body parts?" Did he not suffer thirst that he desired to have quenched by Lazarus? He did NOT go to hell in a physical body now did he? So why is it so difficult to believe that just because God is a spirit that He cannot possess body parts?
quote:
Originally posted by TGB
victoryword: You added something about me saying that God possessed a physical body. Never ONCE did I say that. I said that God had hands, feet, eyes, etc. I said that SPIRIT BEINGS have these things. Read the descriptions of spirit beings written in the Bible.
Tom: This is precisely the point. The descriptions are given by people to whom angles appeared in visions or dreams. So if they’re not physical body parts, they’re…? Immaterial (?) body parts? They’re what we would SEE if we could see them in the spiritual realm? Whatever floats yer boat victory. I have less than zero interest in contemplating or arguing about what actual spiritual “form” immaterial beings possess. I’d certainly never invest energy in being “dogmatic” about such questions.
As you wish
quote:
Originally posted by TGB
victoryword: Are they all just "mists" floating around or are there avid descriptions given of them?
Tom: A mist is a material substance, and since “spirit” beings (angels and God) are immaterial, I wouldn’t say they’re mists. That they reveal themselves to our minds’ eye in visions and dreams or apparitions as possessing bodies (or being animal like, as they are sometimes seen in visions--Ezekiel) is hardly (I think) meant to encourage us to speculate on what sort of literal but non-physical form their body parts take. In the end, I don’t see the whole point of this discussion. Is there some point about God, how he relates to us, or how we live in and for him, that our knowing or arguing for the literal spiritual form of God’s body helps make?
It was the initial question given to me. I did not bring this subject up. I simply answered a question. When I answered it and supported my views with Scripture I received a backlash of philosophical reasoning on why those passages that describe God with body parts cannot be taken literally.
Not sure how acceptance or rejection of this matters as far as a relationship with God is concerned, but in some sense, it does matter to me how much of His Word I can believe is literally true and how much I must attempt to explain away as anthropomorphic and what authority I have for either/or.
So perhaps, in a sense it does effect my relationship with Him.
quote:
Originally posted by TGB
victoryword: Doesn't God have a throne that He sits upon?
Tom: Why in the world think so? I don’t think so, no. I think this is simply figurative language for the exercise of God’s authority and rule in the universe. That God possesses authority and that he exercises it in ruling the universe IS LITERALLY TRUE and THAT’S the point of the figure. But what’s important here, victoryword, is this: What is lost in terms of truth regarding God (who he is, how he relates to us, etc.) if God’s “throne” is nothing but a metaphor, an analogy taken from our world to express something literally true and very real about God (namely, the exercise of his authority and kingdom)? What have you lost if this is the case? On the other hand, what truth beyond this is gained by insisting that God’s throne is a literal throne made of literal spiritual materials and that God actually puts his spiritual butt on it?
Why in the world should I think so? It might possibly be because the Bible, which I believe to be a revelation from God to revela HImself to us says so.
What have I lost if I believe or disbelieve this? I have lost a sense of confidence in how true God's Word is. I have lost a sense in knowing what can I really believe is true about this Bible.
Personally I refuse to allow such thoughts to creep in to my thinking.
I have to end it here for right now. Will address the rest later.
Thanks for responding and putting up with me. You too FeelinaHole. Love both of you guys.
Troy
If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 5/14/2004 3:39 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Troy,
Does it lessen the truthfulness (and authority) of God's word for HIM to use metaphors? Jesus used figurative language (in the the form of parables, similes, and metaphors) almost constantly in his teaching:
"The kingdom of heaven is like...a mustard seed," etc.
"The kingdom of God is like yeast hidden in a batch of dough."
He referred to his own death as like Jonah being in the belly of the whale three days and three nights.
He called the religious leaders of his day "a brood of vipers," and "whitened sepulchres full of dead men's bones."
He said the kingdom of God is like a sower going forth to sow, and people are like different kinds of soil.
He referred told his disciples, "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you."
None of these comparisons are LITERALLY true, but they all express a VERY powerful literal truth. So I don't think anyone is challenging the legitimacy or the veracity of Scripture by merely recognizing the obvious--that it's filled with metaphors.
The OT writings constantly use metaphors, word pictures, and comparisons to natural things to describe the nature of the spiritual.
"My vineyard..."
"We are his people, and the SHEEP of his pasture..."
"They have forsaken Me, the FOUNTAIN of living waters..."
"Israel is like a backsliding heifer..."
"You shall jump about for joy like calves led from a stall."
"You are weighed in the balance and found wanting."
These metaphoric illustrations do not weaken the authority of Scripture at all.
"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 | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/14/2004 7:02 PM (GMT -6) | | Sorry to overload you Troy. But I’m busy with deadlines for the next week and won’t have much time, so I thought I’d philosophize meaninglessly on my continuing dissertation while I have a chance! 
Troy: I am sure you felt your arguemnt was "sound" but for a person like me, a refutation must include something other than a philosophical dissertation that says why a Scripture cannot be read for exactly what it says.
Tom: I’m not arguing against reading the Bible for “exactly what it says” by suggesting it sometimes be read figuratively. On the contrary, "just what it says" is precisely what I’m after. What you fail to see is that a figurative use of language can be “exactly what is said.” But the failure to see this is purely a philosophical assumption on your part (and you claim to reject philosophical reasoning as a basis for determining how Scripture ought to be read).
Troy: Nevertheless, I am not dogmatic about the "God forgetting" thing. I am still looking into it and you guys are helping me with the dialogues we have going.
Tom: But I’m using the same “philosophical reasoning" you reject in discussing how to understand divine body parts. How is it acceptable for getting you to consider the figurative use of “forget” but not even allowable for considering the figurative use of “face”?
Troy: However, it just seems to me that many here simply do not believe that God really means what He says and that what He says needs constant reinterpretation.
Tom: Be careful, Troy, you’re on your way to a “philosophical dissertation”! For my part, I’d argue (dogmatically too!) that God always really means what he says. The only other option to this is to believe God is lying or is disingenuous. God means what he says and says what he means, whether he’s speaking literally or figuratively. But perhaps you’re philosophical assumption here is that a person can only “really mean what they say” if they’re speaking literally. But that’s just not true. When God, speaking figuratively, says he’s the “rock of our salvation” God really means what he says.
Unfortunately, just affirming this doesn’t tell us WHAT God means when he speaks, nor does it tell us whether or not God’s meaning is found in a literal or figurative understanding of his words. BOTH are legitimate uses of language, and God nowhere tells us, “Hey guys, I’m now going to speak literally,” or “I’m now going to speak figuratively.” We have to figure that out, and I’m sorry to say that this means using the sort of philosophical reasoning you say doesn’t work for you (but which you constantly employ along with the rest of us, as you just did above). This doesn’t mean what God says needs “constant reinterpretation.” (That begs the question.) It just needs interpreting, period.
Troy: Let's start with a definition from www.dictionary.com
Tom: How ‘bout we boil all the definitions you posted for “literal” down to one: “nonfigurative.” A literal rock is a “small to medium sized piece of granite or some other type of stone.” A figurative rock is “something strong, dependable, or immovable.” Both of these uses of language are legitimate and both can “really be meant” by the person using them.
Troy: I am not sure why an object in the spirit realm cannot seem to have any shape or form if I listen to the view of most people here.
Tom: I’ve suggested that a) the literal form of spiritual beings isn't something we ought to be dogmatic about anyhow, and b) arguing the literal, non-figurative use of “God hides his face” yields a silly meaning at best and an incoherent one at worst, while the figurative meaning alone yields something that works well: “God removes his favor.” You cannot get to this meaning if you go the literal route.
Troy: Wasn't the tabernacle of Moses a pattern of things in Heaven? Is Heaven a physical place? Of course not. Yet, don't things take shape and form in Heaven?
Tom: Yes, the tabernacle was a pattern of heavenly realities. The Bible says as much. And I’m sure that in order for God to show Moses how to build a physical tabernacle in the desert, he had to give Moses a vision of what he wanted built. So Moses would have seen a vision of sorts. Visions work that way. But this doesn’t mean there’s a literal/spiritual tabernacle in heaven. Revelation actually precludes there being such a thing, for we’re told there is no temple in the eternal state. We have to be careful about concluding what the “form” of something in heaven is based on a vision God gives someone. Peter had a vision of unclean beasts being let down from heaven in a blanket. Are we to conclude that there are literal animals in heaven, animals that physical mortal people can literally eat? See the difficulties Troy? It’s not as cut and dry as you seem to want to make it. And if the writer of the book of Hebrews has anything to say about whether the tabernacle was a literal or figurative pattern of the heavenly originals, then we’re definitely talking figurative.
Troy: As you wish…
Tom: Isn’t that what the farmer says to the princess in the movie?
Troy: It was the initial question given to me. I did not bring this subject up. I simply answered a question.
Tom: No problem. I wasn’t getting on your case bro. I was just questioning the wisdom of being “dogmatic” about this particular issue. But if there’s something at stake here that requires dogmatism, then…
…as you wish.
Troy: When I answered it and supported my views with Scripture…
Tom: No, you just quoted Scripture and asked, “Why can’t it be literal?” That’s not really “supporting” anything. I can do that. I can quote the same passages where God is described as “hiding his face” or “sitting on his throne” and ask, “Why can’t it be figurative?” but that in itself isn’t an argument. I’ve tried to show WHY the literal in this case doesn’t yield a meaning that works whereas the figurative use of language does.
Troy: I received a backlash of philosophical reasoning on why those passages that describe God with body parts cannot be taken literally.
Tom: I’m not sure why you keep repeating “philosophical.” You seem to assume reasoning things in an attempt to nail down the intended meaning of some passage is somehow illegitimate. But, Troy, since the Bible doesn’t itself tell us, “Hey, take me literally here,” or “Take me figuratively there,” we HAVE to actually think and reason our way through language and context and beliefs we already hold. You can’t escape reasoning philosophically through these issues.
As for “backlash,” I hope I didn’t come across as warlike or insulting. Language and interpretation are complicated issues that aren’t address by just quoting verses and saying “What’s wrong with the literal? There, I win.”
Troy: Not sure how acceptance or rejection of this matters as far as a relationship with God is concerned…
Tom: I certainly hope you’ll agree it doesn’t matter at all. You’ve already agreed that God doesn’t have a physical body. So whatever else you mean by spiritual form, it’s not gonna run into the problem that a literal “physical” understand would. So I say, who friggin cares? If you think you can get some workable meaning out of a literal interpretation of “God hides his face,” go for it. I’d be interested in hearing just what you think that meaning is, but I wouldn’t claim it ultimately matters to your relationship with God. Heavens no.
Troy: …but in some sense, it does matter to me how much of His Word I can believe is literally true and how much I must attempt to explain away as anthropomorphic and what authority I have for either/or.
Tom: There you go philosophizing again! And it’s confusing. For the record, Troy, you can believe ALL of God’s Word is “literally true.” I do. Whatever meaning is conveyed through the literal USE of language or the figurative USE of language, it is literally true.
It’s not fair, and it shows your fundamental misunderstanding of the issue, to juxtapose “believing what is literally true” with “attempting to explain away….” Dude, literary anthropomorphisms don’t “explain away” anything. They’re a legitimate use of language and the Bible is full of them. They actually do reveal what is literally true about God. They just do so by making use of figurative language. So it’s all TRUE whether the meaning that is true is conveyed to us through a literal use of language or a figurative use of language.
quote:
victoryword: Doesn't God have a throne that He sits upon?
Tom: Why in the world think so? I don’t think so, no. I think this is simply figurative language for the exercise of God’s authority and rule in the universe. That God possesses authority and that he exercises it in ruling the universe IS LITERALLY TRUE and THAT’S the point of the figure. But what’s important here, victoryword, is this: What is lost in terms of truth regarding God (who he is, how he relates to us, etc.) if God’s “throne” is nothing but a metaphor, an analogy taken from our world to express something literally true and very real about God (namely, the exercise of his authority and kingdom)? What have you lost if this is the case? On the other hand, what truth beyond this is gained by insisting that God’s throne is a literal throne made of literal spiritual materials and that God actually puts his spiritual butt on it?
Troy: Why in the world should I think so? It might possibly be because the Bible, which I believe to be a revelation from God to reveal himself to us says so.
Tom: You’re flat out begging the question, Troy. What I suggest “God’s throne” means doesn’t amount to a denial that God is revealing himself truthfully to us in the phrase. On the contrary, I’m insisting that truth about God is revealed in the Bible’s description of “God sitting on his throne.” You keep making the mistake of assuming that TRUTH is only found in literal USES of language, while figurative USES of language can’t convey truth. But the truth which I argued is revealed in “God sitting on his throne”—viz., that God is exercising his authority in the world, is in control of the world, and is attentive to the administration of the affaris of his kingdom—earned no comment from you whatsoever. I argued the figurative use of “God sits on his throne,” and I can just as confidently affirm that God has truly revealed himself in the language.
Let’s take your “literal” interpretation. God’s spiritual form is seated on a literal throne. That’s it. That’s all the literal interpretation will give you. It cannot tell you anything about the nature of his rule, whether he’s successful or lousy at ruling, or whether he even deserves to sit on the throne. It’s just a literal Polaroid snapshot of God sitting in heaven. It’s only the figurative USE of language that let’s us incorporate the BEST possible meanings that attach to “sitting on a throne.” In going with the literal, you dry the language up have it reveal next to nothing about God’s “rule” and the “exercise of his authority.” If you want to say something about that, the figurative is the option. You can call this pointless philosophizing if you want to, but that’s not engaging the arguments.
Troy: What have I lost if I believe or disbelieve this? I have lost a sense of confidence in how true God's Word is. I have lost a sense in knowing what can I really believe is true about this Bible.
Tom: Grrrrr. Troy, bro, stop confusing the literal vs figurative USE OF LANGUAGE with literally TRUE or NOT TRUE. Both literal and figurative USES of language convey literal truth about God and the world. If you correct this, you won’t have to worry about figurative language undermining your confidence in the truth of Scripture. But if you insist that only literally USES of language may speak truthfully about God, THEN confidence is undermined as a literal understanding of “God sits on the throne” shows.
Troy: Personally I refuse to allow such thoughts to creep in to my thinking.
Tom: I hope you change your mind, ‘cause any confidence you have in Scripture is undermined if it rests on interpreting “God hides/shows his face” and “God sits on a throne” literally, i.e., non-figuratively.
Troy: Thanks for responding and putting up with me. You too FeelinaHole. Love both of you guys.
Tom: Crazy love and appreciation to you Troy. Peace and blessings.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/15/2004 9:40 AM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: I agree with your point about the thief on the cross asking Christ to "remember" him. The idea is definitely about what Christ will DO at that time. It also seems to be what is in mind in the Noah-passage. It's somewhat similar to a woman thanking her husband for "remembering" her on her birthday. The idea is not that the husband remembered what day of the year the birthday was on, but that the husband ACTED on that knowledge.
Tom: Exactly.
Jeff: But when it comes to the verse about God remembering our sins no more, I don't see why it can't be literal. What scriptural or philosophical basis do we have for insisting that God cannot forget something if He chooses to?
Tom: Good question. I’ll mention again a bit of my reasoning (from page one) for believing God can’t chose to literally forget the past. But first let’s try to express as short-n-sweetly as we can what we mean by omniscience, OK? I’m assuming you believe God is omniscient. Here’s an excellent definition: God knows all truths and believes no falsehoods. If you wanted to write that for anal folks who like to get really specific and logical, it would look like this: For any p, if p, then God knows that p and does not believe that not-p. Let’s stick with the simpler: God knows all truths and believes no falsehoods.
OK, it seems to me that if God literally forgets the past, and so does not know it, then he can’t be omniscient. It’s pretty simple. Let’s say that on March 3, 2003 I lied to my boss about having completed a project. God knew what I did when I did it, but he forgave me. Now if God literally forgets my sin when he forgives me, then he does not today know all truths, for there is today a truth expressed in the proposition “Tom lied to his boss on March 3, 2003.” This is a true proposition, for I did lie to my boss on March 3, 2003. But if God forgot this sin, he wouldn’t now know if this proposition is true or false. How would he? He forgot it, in which case there are truths he doesn’t know, in which case he’s not omniscient. You can’t affirm “God knows all truths” and at the same time affirm “God does not know some truths.”
A second reason for thinking God can’t choose to literally not know some truths is the practical implications. I asked on page one, let’s assume that I continually struggle with accepting forgiveness and letting go of the past, unable to get free from my own past sins. How is God to counsel me? What does God say to me when I want to discuss the past with him? How would he know if my memory is even accurate at all if his memory isn’t accurate? How could he forget and I NOT forget AND he have infallible knowledge of my present thoughts and memories, including knowing whether my memories are accurate or not?
Thirdly, I don’t see what’s gained by believing God literally forgets and so doesn’t know my past sins? What problems are there in going with the figurative (covenantal language) route that are fixed by going with the literal (less than omniscient) route? And how do you address (1) and (2) above? Gotta solve those if you want to maintain God is omniscient AND doesn’t know all truths.
Lastly, one could try to argue (not sure) that the very description of “choosing to forget” as it’s applied to God in this case, is self-contradictory. To “choose” to forget one must know what to forget. But forgetting entails NOT knowing. If I wanted to forget something I could choose to pursue the sort of day to day schedule and lifestyle that IN TIME would make my forgetting very probable. But that’s not what you’re saying God does. You’re saying the moment God forgives us (in fact, part of what it means to forgive) he deletes those files from his hard drive. Imagining this is like trying to imagine God making a rock so big he can’t lift it.
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 5/15/2004 10:42 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
I agree with your point about the thief on the cross asking Christ to "remember" him. The idea is definitely about what Christ will DO at that time.
Forgive me for walking into this conversation not having followed it. My one remark won't contradict anything here, or build on it. It'll be just "food for thought." OK?
I grew up Evangelical, attend a Reformed church, and have made myself aquainted with the Eastern Orthodox tradition to some extent. In that last, rather "foreign" (to me) context the notion of "remembrance" and "memory" are HIGHLY POTENT, CHARGED, AND MAGNIFICENT. I get the feeling that it is not just Russian, Greek, or recent Middle East that feels this way. Its roots are buried deep in their historical liturgical worship. I'm betting, that it goes right back to the Jewishness of Christian worship ('Tom in Lebanon,' what do you think?) Even when Christ says "Do this in remembrance of me" they see more in those words than my Swedish Baptist Sunday School teachers were aware of.
The heart of it seems to be located right back to creation and providence/sustaining. God speaks into existance, makes covenant, sustains. God "remembers" both in upholding, and in being sensitive "He knows our frame, and remembers that we are dust" (OT).
In our own Evangelical church services the part where there is prayer for the offering (which is a token of ourselves) includes prayers for the whole congregation. Orthodox have "remembrances" for those who are present, sick, traveling, departed, etc. They say of the departed "may his 'memory' be eternal. Implied is both their being remembered by God (of course) and in our joining in that work of the Spirit in prayer, upholding them as co-members of Christ's body. Many hymns us Evangelicals sing make the same point ("For all the Saints, who from their labors rest...").
Memory and remembrance are HUGE parts of being a Child of God. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 5/15/2004 10:55 AM (GMT -6) | | Pieces from the Divine Liturgy of St. Mark (very old):
quote:
- Deacon: And for the memory of our venerable fathers and brethren, let us all say heartily: Lord, have mercy.
Choir: Lord, have mercy.
- Thou art merciful and generous and rememberest not the evil of man.
- Calling to remembrance our most holy, most pure and blessed, glorious Lady Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary, with all the Saints, let us commit ourselves, and one another, and all our life unto Christ our God.
- Remember, O Lord, Thy Holy and only Catholic and Apostolic Church, which is from the ends of the world unto the ends thereof, and all Thy people and all Thy flock. Enthrone the peace of heaven in our hearts, but bestow upon us also the peace of this life.
- Give rest to the souls of our fathers and brethren that have heretofore fallen asleep in the faith of Christ, O Lord our God. Remember, O Lord, our ancestors, fathers, patriarchs, prophets, apostles, martyrs, confessors, teachers, bishops, venerable and righteous persons, every soul departed this life from all ages in the faith of Christ, and whose memory we keep this day, and our holy father Mark the Apostle and Evangelist, who hath shown us the path of salvation.
- Remember, O Lord our God, the most holy and blessed (N., Patriarch, Metropolitan, Archbishop or Bishop) whom Thou didst foreknow and choose to take in hand the government of Thy Holy Church, and our most venerable Bishop (N.). Guard them by Thy care, for many years, in peaceful time, accomplishing Thy holy archpastorate, entrusted to them by Thee, according to Thy holy and blessed will, rightly dividing the word of Thy truth.
And remember also all Orthodox Bishops everywhere, Presbyters, Deacons, subdeacons, readers, singers, monks, and virgins, widows, orphans, and laity.
Remember, O Lord, the Holy City of Christ our God, and the reigning city [Constantinople], and this our city, every city and region, and those that dwell in it in the Orthodox Faith of Christ, for their peace and safety.
Remember, O Lord, every Christian soul in affliction and trouble, in need of the mercy and succour of God, and the conversation of them that have wandered, the salvation of our souls, and our brethren that are in bonds.
Remember, O Lord, those that sail and travel, the Christians who receive wayfarers into their homes, and those in captivity or foreign exile, our brethren in bitter servitude; grant them to receive compassion from those that hold them.
Remember, O Lord, in mercy and compassion also us sinful and unworthy servants of Thine, and wash away our sins as Thou art good and the Lover of mankind, and by Thy most holy Spirit, grant us to serve Thee.
Bless, O Lord, our congregations; root out idolatry utterly from the world; crush Satan and all his power and wickedness beneath our feet; the enemies of Thy Church, O Lord, as at all times, so now humble. Lay bare their pride, speedily make manifest their weakness; bring to nought their plots and villainy which they use against us.
(Deacon: Ye that are sitting, rise up; look ye to the East.)
Arise, O Lord, and let Thine enemies be scattered, and let them that hate Thee flee backward; but multiply Thy faithful and Orthodox people who do Thy holy will, unto a thousand thousands and ten thousand times ten thousand blessings.
Free them that are in bonds, bring them forth that are in need, satisfy the hungry, slake the thirsty, comfort the pusillanimous, convert them that have strayed, enlighten them that are in darkness, raise the fallen, make firm the wavering, heal the sick; lead all into the way of salvation, and unite them to Thy holy flock; and preserve us from our iniquities, being in all things our keeper, and our defender.
-
- Priest: Do this in remembrance of Me. For as often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup, ye proclaim My death, and confess My Resurrection and Ascension, until I come.
Choir: (Tone 8:) We proclaim Thy Death, O Lord, and we confess Thy Resurrection.
- Deacon: Having commemorated all the Saints and the righteous, again and again in peace let us pray to the Lord.
Choir: Lord, have mercy.
| | Back to Top | | |
| 84 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:15 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
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|