 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > Open Theism and the Trinity -Christocentric theolo | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 5:35 AM (GMT -6) |   | Message Go To Page 2 3 4 >>
Lion-Lamb
01/03/01 4:31 PM
Open Theism and the Trinity--Christocentric Theology of God
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beso,
The second point of your last note in the Jacob/Esau in Romans discussion thread intrigued me so much I want to use your words to start a new discussion thread. I will quote your words in full.
Which view of God do you find most plausible? Here, for my two cents, its no contest. If Jesus is the final revelation of God -- if our theology is to be "christocentric" -- then the all-important question is this: Which view reflects a more Christ-like God? I can't imagine Jesus fashioning people into vessels of wrath from the foundation of the world.
I want to focus this discussion thread upon your central question: If Jesus is the final revelation of God -- if our theology is to be "christocentric" -- then the all-important question is this: Which view reflects a more Christ-like God? I am particularly interested in receiving input from all open theists in this discussion forum, and especially Greg Boyd, since he is the resident theologian and host of the forum. If you folks would, please unpack what Beso’s question indicates for you. Perhaps the following questions could begin to guide this discussion.
How is Christian theology to be Christocentric?
What does it mean to have a Christ-like God?
Is open theism’s view of God incarnational?
What does all this mean? What are the implications? What shape does this give to one's theology?
My interest in starting this thread is primarily for non-open theists, such as I, to ask questions of open theists with a focus upon Open Theism and the Trinity. My interest, here, is to listen to open theists explain their theology of God. It is not to engage in lengthy dialogue as I have done with Greg Boyd on Romans 9. My part in this thread will be principally to ask questions. For the purpose of this thread, I want to discourage non-open theists from doing more than ask questions. I would like this thread to be dedicated to learning more about this Christocentric focus of open theism, rather than given to debating the topic. I would prefer debate of the subject to be brought to its own thread. Thanks.
So, I’m calling all open theists to contribute your responses. I’m especially interested to hear Beso unpack those intriguing statements.
Eager to listen,
Lion-Lamb
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
01/05/01 10:56 AM
Anybody Home?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just wondering. Is anyone going to interact with this subject? I think it's very important. This implicitly deals with your theology proper and christology. I'm asking all the open view theists to answer all of the questions presented here comprehensively, s'il vous plait. Beso, it'd be lovely for you to begin...
Resting but still reading,
Mephi2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
beso
01/05/01 4:01 PM
RE: Open Theism and the Trinity--Christocentric Theology of God
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heh Lion, I thought you were going to take a nap and let lamb "romp" in the fields of God's mercy for a spell (see end of Jacob/Esau thread to get the inside humor)!
Your questions are interesting -- but kind of "heavy" theologically. Goodbye amatuer hour. Also, no one in their right mind would agree to the debate strategy you propose. One side gets to ask all the questions, the other side can only answer.!!!! (You may tell me that this isn't a "debate," but come on, it is. That's what makes it fun and interesting) This seems a bit heavy handed, Lion.
Nevertheless, I'm new to this internet stuff, so maybe everyone who starts a thread can make up their own rules. I don't know. And I'm also very unwise, so I'll bite the bait. But I'm not sure what exactly you're looking for. Consider this a first effort.
1. "How is Christian theology to be Christocentric?"
Answer: By being centered on Jesus Christ. John 14:8-10. If you see me, Jesus said, you see the Father. Christ is the key to what God is like. Period. Whatever else we think we find out about God in Scripture, it can't contradict what Jesus reveals. Jesus --especially his sacrifice on Calvary -- must interpret everything else, not vice versa.
2. "What does it mean to have a Christ-like God?"
Answer: A God who looks like Jesus. He is the "Word" of God (Jn 1:1). He is the "expression" of God's essence (Heb 1 somewhere). It means having a God whose attributes are centrally defined by the life of Jesus. Maybe the best way to get at this is by asking the question: If your God were incarnated, right here and right now in front of you, would he act and relate to people and minister exactly as Jesus did? If so, you have "a Christ-like God".
Here's a crucial application of this issue: How do we define God's sovereignty? Well, I think having a Christ centered theology means a Christ-like sovereignty. God's sovereignty is revealed on the cross, precisely when God MADE HIMSELF completely vulerable to the world. This seems to me to be opposite a view that sovereignty is about controlling everything.
Seems to me that Calvinism makes the Incarnation the exception to what God is like, rather than the rule. "Yes Jesus is loving and vulnerable, BUT God is ALSO wrathful and controlling."
3. "Is open theism’s view of God incarnational?"
Answer: Yes. Is Calvinisms God incarnational?
4. "What does all this mean? What are the implications? What shape does this give to one's theology?"
Answer: Simple. If followed through consistently it would imply that... Open Theism is true and Calvinism is wrong (smile smile). Just kidding. I can't answer that one.
Okay, I open it up for others. But, against Lion's wishes, I think it would be helpful if non-Openness folk answered these questions from their own perspectives.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Lion-Lamb
01/06/01 9:23 AM
RE: Open Theism and the Trinity--Christocentric Theology of God
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lion-Lamb was napping and romping. Lion-Lamb started this thread on 01/03/01 at 4:31 PM, not on 01/05/01. I’m still napping and romping, but I’ll interrupt my fun for a moment to keep this thread going, since I initiated it.
Everyone, please note that my interest in starting this thread was primarily to learn more about what Beso called Christocentric theology of God, using the expression, a more Christ-like God. Perhaps I did not make my intentions clear enough. I was hardly setting up a one-sided debate strategy. As I indicated in the initial note, I intended this thread to be informative, rather than a debate. I’m interested in learning more about Open Theism’s view of the Trinity, given the fact that at least some open theists use expressions such as Beso has used, as indicated above.
Now, in light of what has already been said by way of brief response to my invitation to discussion, I will highlight some things that we need to consider.
Beso has raised a passage we should talk about--John 14:9-11. What does Jesus mean when he says, “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.” Also, I should bring to mind a few other passages from John’s Gospel.
John 12:45—“The one who believes in me does not believe in me but in the one who sent me. And the one who looks at me, that one sees the one who sent me.”
Of course, we should bring John 1:14 & 18 into our purview as well: “And the word became flesh and tabernacled among us, and we gazed upon his glory, glory as of the unique One from the Father, full of grace and truth. . . . No one has ever seen God. The unique One, God, is the one who is in the bosom of the Father; that one has expounded him.”
John 6:45-46 is significant also: “Everyone who listens and learns from the Father also come to me. Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God; this one has seen the Father.”
Remember, of course, John 1:18 refers to Exodus 33:18-20. The OT reference says, “Then Moses said, “Now show me your glory.” And the LORD said, “I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the LORD, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.”
What does Exodus 33:20 mean? When the Lord says, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live,” what kind of sight does he mean? Is the Lord referring simply or even primarily to physical sight? When Jesus says, “the one who looks at me, that one sees the one who sent me,” what kind of sight does he mean? Isn’t it evident that thousands of Jews and hundreds of Gentiles physically saw Jesus? Did they “see the one who sent” the Son? If so, in what sense did they see the Father? Therefore, what is the sense of these verbs for seeing that are used in all these verses? In what sense, then, is it that one sees the Father when one sees the Son? Let’s unpack this. For it seems to me that, if we are going to say “our view of God is incarnational,” or that we believe in a “Christ-like God,” we need to address what it means to see the Father when we see the Son.
These are matters I would like to give our open theist friends an opportunity to interact with, free of debate, at least for several posts.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Lion-Lamb
01/08/01 3:52 PM
RE: RE: Open Theism and the Trinity--Christocentric Theology of God
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calling all open theists! I thought you all would enjoy this thread. Let's hear from you!
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
01/08/01 5:09 PM
Still waiting....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lion's motion is seconded.
Meph
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
01/08/01 6:47 PM
RE: Still waiting....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Had a little time to hop on the web and found this curious thread. In what sense do we "see" the Father in the Son, and in what sense do we not "see" the Father in the Son, Lion Lamb asks? I like what St. Irenaeus said in the second century: "The Son is the visibility of the Father, the Father the invisibility of the Son" (Against Heresies). All that can be "seen" -- viz. known, grasped, comprehened, experienced, etc... -- is in the Son. What the Son reveals, he reveals truly, though God in his infinitude can never be exhaustively known -- "seen" -- by any human.
In my view, to have a Christocentric theology means to do all of one's theologizing revolving around the person of Jesus Christ. He is the definitive hermenuetical key. Here I think Beso was correct. Christ is the "Word" (Jn 1:1); the "image" (Col. 1:15; 2 Cor. 4:4-6); the expression of the God's substance (Heb. 1:3); the one who "makes God known" (Jn. 1:18). Whatever else we think we know about God must conform to the revelation of himself in Christ. When Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life," and when Jesus said "no one goes to the Father except through me," he was speaking epistemologically as well as soteriologically.
The heart of this revelation, I would submit, is that God loves the world to the point of dying a hellish, God forsaken death on the cross. He shares in our humanity, and takes upon himself our sin -- he BECOMES sin (2 Cor. 5:21) -- in order that we might share in God's righteousness. It reveals that God wants to be God with us, and not without us. It reveals that God is a God who accomplishes things through self-sacrificial love. It reveals that God gives space for creatures -- to the point of allowing us to "shove him out of our world" (Bonhoffer).
In a word, when we think of God, we should think of Jesus.
End of mini-sermon.
Greg
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Lion-Lamb
01/08/01 11:38 PM
RE: Open Theism and the Trinity--Christocentric Theology of God
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd like to bring into this discussion something John Sanders says. I think it should intrigue all--open theists and others, alike. He says,
Finally, it could be said that Jesus is the consummate anthropomorphism: the Logos became flesh and blood and tabernacled among us (Jn 1:14); the person who has witnessed Jesus has seen the Father (Jn 14:9); Jesus is the exact representation of the divine nature (Heb 1:3) in whom deity dwelled in bodily form (Col 1:15-20; 2:9). If the incarnation is true and the divine son experienced fully human life, then God in this way relates to the world in precisely the same way we do. Jesus is the consummate revelation of God in human form. The divine self-disclosure in Jesus puts an end to the claim that being in the form of a human is contrary to divine nature. To overturn this, we would need a priori knowledge that the divine nature is completely unlike human nature, which would render an incarnation impossible (The God Who Risks, p. 26).
Here are some questions.
Do open theists and non-open theists agree with John Sanders?
With how much of what John says, would you agree?
With what would you not agree? Why?
Is it true and biblical that Jesus Christ is the consummate anthropomorphism?
If it is true that Jesus is the consummate anthropomorphism, what implications does this have for understanding all anthropomorphisms?
If Jesus is the consummate anthropomorphism, i.e, the one to whom all anthropomorphisms must point and to whom they all yield, how should we understand the anthropomorphisms of the Old Testament?
Do you agree with John Sanders in the following statement? If the incarnation is true and the divine son experienced fully human life, then God in this way relates to the world in precisely the same way we do. Is this statement consistent with saying Jesus is the consummate anthropomorphism? Why or why not?
Let's think about it. Greg Boyd has offered some comments, but lets keep at it. What do you all think? Since not many have engaged this thread, let's get the non-open theists into this conversation, also.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
CHF
01/09/01 1:02 AM
RE: RE: Open Theism and the Trinity--Christocentric Theology of God
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lion-Lamb:
I would love to add my 2 cents, but I have been very interested to see the OV in action. I really would like to see more interaction from the OV before I say anything, because what you have asked of is very important. If an Open Theist is ever going to have an opportunity to convince me, now is the time.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
01/09/01 7:47 AM
RE: RE: Open Theism and the Trinity--Christocentric Theology of God
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I don't want to miss the chance to convince CHF, so I best get on the stick! I'll respond to Lion-Lamb's questions point by point.
1) Do open theists and non-open theists agree with John Sanders?
In spirit, this Open Theist says yes. In detail, I think there's some disagreement (though I'm not exactly sure what John means when he says God experiences the world "precisely the way we do.") I also am not sure what Sanders means by saying Jesus is the "consumate anthropomorphicism."
2) With how much of what John says, would you agree?
93.8%
3). With what would you not agree? Why?
AS I said, I don't know what exactly is entailed by the phrase "precisely the way we do" or by the concept of "consumate anthropomorphism." I suspect Sanders wants to say that anthropomorphisms are not figures of speech, but may apply to God as ontologically as literal terms (e.g. God is eternal). If so, we'd need a new word to describe the figures of speech that are non-literal (e.g. the "eyes of the Lord roam the world").
4) Is it true and biblical that Jesus Christ is the consummate anthropomorphism?
As I said, I'm not exactly sure what Sanders means by this. But if he means Jesus Christ is the consumate expression of GOD IN HUMAN FORM, then yes, I agree. I think he is correct in seeing Jesus Christ as the perfect expression of what it means for humans to be made in the IMAGE OF GOD, and thus the definitive revelation of the God-created continuity between God and humanity.
5) If it is true that Jesus is the consummate anthropomorphism, what implications does this have for understanding all anthropomorphisms?
I don't know what Sanders means. For my part, it may mean that some passages that were thought to be figurative may not be figurative after all (see below).
6) If Jesus is the consummate anthropomorphism, i.e, the one to whom all anthropomorphisms must point and to whom they all yield, how should we understand the anthropomorphisms of the Old Testament?
As I said, I don't know exactly what Sanders means by "consummate anthropomorphism." So I'm not sure how to answer your question. But in general I'd say this: Because Jesus Christ is the definitive revelation of God, he reveals that IT IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH GOD'S NATURE TO CHANGE, SUFFER, BE VULNERABLE, ETC. Hence, the fact that a verse says God "changed his mind" or altered his intentions is not itself reason to think that it is anthropomorphic.
7) Do you agree with John Sanders in the following statement? If the incarnation is true and the divine son experienced fully human life, then God in this way relates to the world in precisely the same way we do. Is this statement consistent with saying Jesus is the consummate anthropomorphism? Why or why not?
I am convinced that Lion-Lamb is a professor somewhere. No one asks questions like this except a professor. AS I said above (though this won't even get me a "C" I don't think), I don't know enough of what Sanders means to agree or disagree. But I DO know I agree with the "spirit" of what he wrote. Whatever else we say about God, he is not THE OPPOSITE of what we find in Jesus Christ.
The rub of the issue, I think, is this.
HOW DID THE CLASSICAL TRADITION COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT GOD NEVER IN ANY SENSE CHANGES (HE IS "IMMUTIBLE") WHEN THE DEFINITIVE REVELATION OF GOD OCCURS WHEN HE *BECOMES!!! A MAN (JN 1"14)?
HOW DID THE CLASSICAL TRADITION COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT GOD IS 'ABOVE TIME' WHEN THE DEFINITIVE REVELATION OF GOD OCCURS WHEN HE IS *BORN* IN A MANAGER AND DIES ON THE CROSS?
HOW DID THE CLASSICAL TRADITION COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT GOD NEVER "SUFFERS" (IMPASSIBILITY) WHEN THE DEFINITIVE REVELATION OF GOD OCCURS IN THE HELLISH SUFFERING OF JESUS CHRIST?
Sanders main point -- and you find it in various forms in Jungel, Barth, Kaspers, Moltmann -- is that the "classical" attributes of immutibility, atemporality, actus purus (devoid of potentiality), and impassibility are fundamentally inconsistent with the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. Once one jettisons (or at least radically redefines) these attributes, one finds that a great deal in the Bible that one once had to go to extreme lengths to explain away (e.g. God regrets, is disappointed, changes his mind, etc.) can now be accepted at face value.
Nice questions prof.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
01/09/01 11:17 AM
Let's Keep It Moving.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok. I think that I'll be a tad more active now.
Doc Boyd,
I appreciate your posts, but I wanted to ask some more clarifying questions. I'll start with Post 1 and move on...
POST #1
Doc says:
"In my view, to have a Christocentric theology means to do all of one's theologizing revolving around the person of Jesus Christ. He is the definitive hermenuetical key."
and...
"When Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life," and when Jesus said "no one goes to the Father except through me," he was speaking epistemologically as well as soteriologically."
Mephi:
Ok, then. What do these answers imply? It seems to me they say that if one has an inadequate view of Christ, then logically one will have an inadequate view of God. I don't believe I have to tell you about the myriad issues that have arisen over the years in the 3 quests for the historical Jesus, and the lesson that Schweitzer learned in his search about finding what one is looking for. Having said all this, what is your christology concerning the person and work of Christ? When I say this, I mean incorporating what the biblical text affirms about all of his actions and statements via the Gospels. I notice that there are always some people, even atheistic, who will say "Well, Jesus of Nazareth was a good teacher, but some of the things he would claim can be said to be morally questionable." Why would they say this? Wouldn't the loving, egalitarian idea of Jesus fit most humanistic, even secular humanistic, sensibilities? (I'm thinking of John Dominic Crossan's "free healing and common eating" view of Christ) What teachings and behaviors of God incarnate would make some people consider Jesus a person to be anathematized? Perhaps it the way he talked about hell, eternal punishment, and judgment. Perhaps it the way that he purposely obscured his message to many by speaking in parables instead of speaking completely forthrightly so that all may understand. Perhaps it was the way that Jesus had the audacity to order such self-sacrifice from his disciples. I'm just thinking aloud...but what I don't want is for us to look at Jesus as only the sin-bearer on the Cross. It seems to me this is what tends to be happening. From Doc...
"The heart of this revelation, I would submit, is that God loves the world to the point of dying a hellish, God forsaken death on the cross. He shares in our humanity, and takes upon himself our sin -- he BECOMES sin (2 Cor. 5:21) -- in order that we might share in God's righteousness. It reveals that God wants to be God with us, and not without us. It reveals that God is a God who accomplishes things through self-sacrificial love."
As significant as that was, there are other important things about Christ to be considered. And it would seem to me that a truly christocentric theology would take all of those things into account. Jesus Christ in his totality is the lens of our faith, not certain acts of Christ. So, question 1:
What is your concise, yet comprehensive view of the person and work of Jesus Christ? Please emphasize moral, ethical, and theological distinctions of Jesus.
POST #2
Doc said:
"Because Jesus Christ is the definitive revelation of God, he reveals that IT IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH GOD'S NATURE TO CHANGE, SUFFER, BE VULNERABLE, ETC. Hence, the fact that a verse says God "changed his mind" or altered his intentions is not itself reason to think that it is anthropomorphic." (Emphasis Boyd's)
Meph:
Whoo, boy. Now I found this statement very interesting. What I got from this statement taken in the context of the post is as follows:
"Jesus is God in human form. When we look at Jesus, we see how God would act if he were a human being. Therefore, Jesus is the definitive revelation of God to humanity. God, as He truly is, cannot in any way contradict what we see Jesus presenting to humanity. Because Jesus Christ can change, suffer, and be vunerable, then God must be able to authentically do the same."
If this is, indeed, what is being said, then I have to problems. I'll tell what I mean then ask my question(s). I hope that we are not forgetting that Jesus Christ is FULLY human, which necessarily implies temporal, emotional, mental, and physical limitations. Human beings, by their very nature, change, suffer, and have certain vunerabilities. It's one thing to say that the incarnation of Christ illustrates God's solidarity with humanity by becoming human. It's completely something else to be saying that the humanity taken on by Christ is directly correlative to God's ontology. This seems like foolishness. Back to the baby talk analogy I used long ago. That's like me using very simple words and phrases to talk to my 3 year old son so that he can comprehend what I say, and some onlooker basically making the assumption that that simplistic babble must be the way that I talk in all of my conversations. Silly, isn't it? Now let me use the baby talk analogy in a different way. Let's say that some onlooker sees me using the baby talk, but he notices my attitude and emotional display. Perhaps I'm being very short with my son that day. The onlooker could have some reason to say "Hmmm...judging by the way he's speaking to that child, he may have a short temper." See the difference? He looking at my behavior and making a reasonable (though probably uninformed)judgement on my general attitude and inclinations. He's not trying to equivocate my present method of communication with my ability to communicate. I believe that it is in this latter manner, that any type of true christocentric theology is to be constructed. From my "Study Break" thread 12/18/00 11:28 AM, I said:
"Jesus being the supreme revelation of God does a lot of things for us. It shows us what God likes and what he does not like. It helps us see what we should do here on earth and how we should strive to act. AND it helps keep us focused on the REAL subject and object of our faith."
In other words, in Jesus we see what true humanity should look like, humanity that reflects the image of God. But understand that all this is by necessity, anthropomorphic. In Jesus we see what God wants to reveal about his wishes, purposes, and affinities. However, it appears to me that some open view theists wish to make the whole "Jesus being the supreme revelation of Jesus" thing to be much more philosophically than is warranted. Hmmm...maybe that's why human beings are made in the image of God. Could the entire idea of "Imago Dei" be a signal that God never directly reveals himself? Just speculating here...
Finally, to the question. With this question, I want you to garner and use everything that you know about communication and language, particularly about the conveyance and reception of meaning. Moreover, this question will assume that you have a correct understanding of the word "anthropomorphic":
How could an infinite God coherently reveal himself to finite human beings in any other way than an anthropomorphic way? Be specific and thorough in your answer, please!
Oh. And one last question that has yet to be answered by anyone(including Doc) that is aside from this discussion...
Does the Uncertainty Principle hold to God? In other words, does God know the position and velocity of particles at the same time, thus giving God exhaustive comprehension of quantum events? Though you can provide evidence for whatever answer you give, I want a definitive YES or a NO. No dodges on this, ok? (I'm a Chevy man, anyways...hehe)
I hope that my questions (and the reasons behind them) are clear, and I trust that the responses to them will have even more clarity.
Looking for some really good answers,
Mephi2K
PS: All Open View theists can answer these questions. Feel free.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Lion-Lamb
01/09/01 11:49 AM
RE: RE: Open Theism and the Trinity--Christocentric Theology of God
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, I see that Greg Boyd has offered his comments, but others seem timid. I get the sense that most don’t recognize how crucial this particular discussion thread truly is. Perhaps its importance will become clearer as it builds. Since, I’m restricted on time, and am taking a break from work, my comments must be rather brief.
Since Greg offered responses to each of my questions, I suppose it would be fitting to offer brief responses also. Before I do so, I’m going to repost the paragraph John Sanders wrote in The God Who Risks.
Finally, it could be said that Jesus is the consummate anthropomorphism: the Logos became flesh and blood and tabernacled among us (Jn 1:14); the person who has witnessed Jesus has seen the Father (Jn 14:9); Jesus is the exact representation of the divine nature (Heb 1:3) in whom deity dwelled in bodily form (Col 1:15-20; 2:9). If the incarnation is true and the divine son experienced fully human life, then God in this way relates to the world in precisely the same way we do. Jesus is the consummate revelation of God in human form. The divine self-disclosure in Jesus puts an end to the claim that being in the form of a human is contrary to divine nature. To overturn this, we would need a priori knowledge that the divine nature is completely unlike human nature, which would render an incarnation impossible (p. 26).
Here are the questions I asked and now offer preliminary answers, of course, from my perspective.
Do open theists and non-open theists agree with John Sanders? I wonder if many non-open theists would agree with much that John Sanders says in this paragraph. It strikes me that many who regard themselves as Classical Theists have inadequately reflected upon the crucial significance of anthropomorphism for God’s self-revelation. In my opinion, this shortcoming is one that characterizes much of Classical Theism’s response to Open Theism. Classical Christian Theists must do far more work on anthropomorphism than they have, if they have any hope of offering an adequate response to Open Theism. Bruce Ware’s God’s Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism is marked by this inadequacy, as I read the book. I’m sorry, my Classical Christian Theist friends, but that’s how I see it.
There are some, however, who do not succumb to the present inadequacies of so may Classical Christian Theist discussions of anthropomorphism. Herman Bavinck is one. He states,
God uses human language to reveal himself and manifests himself in human forms. It follows that Scripture does not merely contain a few anthropomorphisms; on the contrary, all Scripture is anthropomorphic. From beginning to end Scripture testifies a condescending approach of God to man. The entire revelation of God becomes concentrated in the Logos, who became “flesh.” It is as it were one humanization, one incarnation of God. If God were to speak to us in divine language, no one would be able to understand him; but ever since creation, he, in condescending grace, speaks to us and manifests himself to us in human fashion (Bavinck, The Doctrine of God, 86.
It is noteworthy that John Sanders concedes on the one hand that Bavinck is correct for he formally agrees that “All scripture is anthropomorphic.” However, it is evident that Sanders either fails to understand Bavinck or he simply disagrees with him because he exploits Bavinck’s statement to support his own broad use of the term anthropomorphism–“that all our language about God is human language”–without at the same time accepting either Bavinck’s basis for his statement or his belief that anthropomorphism portrays God figuratively (see The God Who Risks, p. 22.) Remember that Bavinck’s whole statement is: “It follows that Scripture does not merely contain a few anthropomorphisms; on the contrary, all Scripture is anthropomorphic.” So, Sanders’ agreement with Bavinck is formal not material.
With how much of what John says, would you agree? I agree with much of John Sanders’ paragraph. However, I fear that my agreement turns out to be formal rather than material, partly as I have explained above but also as I will explain below.
With what would you not agree? Why? I definitely do not agree with John’s statement: “If the incarnation is true and the divine son experienced fully human life, then God in this way relates to the world in precisely the same way we do.” I notice that Greg Boyd also shies away from agreeing fully with that statement. Greg expresses his hesitation because he’s not entirely sure what John means by it. I believe that John’s statement is clear in the context of his discussion. John’s whole argument leading up to the above quoted concluding paragraph is that God shares a context with us. Sanders explains, “By shared context I mean the conditions of our existence, including our language, history and spatiotemporal world” (p. 24). True as it is that “God enters into that context with us by being in relation to us” (p. 24), Sanders leaps to conclude incorrectly that Hilary of Portiers supports his own concept of anthropomorphism by supposing that Hilary claims “that the Bible, with all its anthropomorphism, nevertheless presents God as he truly is” (italics added for emphasis). Consequently, I believe, John Sanders takes a seriously faulty misstep. For he conclude his argument of chapter 2 by saying, “If God decides to disclose himself to us as a personal being who enters into relationship with us, who has purposes, emotions and desires, and who suffers with us, then we ought to rejoice in this anthropomorphic portrait and accept it as disclosing to us the very nature of God (italics added for emphasis).”
Is it true and biblical that Jesus Christ is the consummate anthropomorphism? Yes. I could hardly improve upon Bavinck’s words already quoted above.
God uses human language to reveal himself and manifests himself in human forms. It follows that Scripture does not merely contain a few anthropomorphisms; on the contrary, all Scripture is anthropomorphic. From beginning to end Scripture testifies a condescending approach of God to man. The entire revelation of God becomes concentrated in the Logos, who became “flesh.” It is as it were one humanization, one incarnation of God. If God were to speak to us in divine language, no one would be able to understand him; but ever since creation, he, in condescending grace, speaks to us and manifests himself to us in human fashion (Bavinck, The Doctrine of God, 86.
If it is true that Jesus is the consummate anthropomorphism, what implications does this have for understanding all anthropomorphisms? I’m out of time for this brief break, so I will have to return to answer the last three questions. Watch for them in a subsequent post.
If Jesus is the consummate anthropomorphism, i.e, the one to whom all anthropomorphisms must point and to whom they all yield, how should we understand the anthropomorphisms of the Old Testament?
Do you agree with John Sanders in the following statement? If the incarnation is true and the divine son experienced fully human life, then God in this way relates to the world in precisely the same way we do. Is this statement consistent with saying Jesus is the consummate anthropomorphism? Why or why not?
Until later,
Lion-Lamb
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
01/09/01 12:22 PM
RE: RE: RE: Open Theism and the Trinity--Christocentr ic Theology of God
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looks like Lion's partially answered my second question with his quote from Bavinck. I'd like to emphasize a part of that quotation:
"If God were to speak to us in divine language, no one would be able to understand him; but ever since creation, he, in condescending grace, speaks to us and manifests himself to us in human fashion"
When Bavinck talks about "divine language", I believe he is referring to God's "native" language, for lack of a better term. Want an image of the distance between God's ways and our ways? Picture a certain German theology student trying to coherently explain the concept of salvation to a 3 year old American child.
Think about it, people.
In Christ,
Mephi2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
beso
01/09/01 5:16 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: Open Theism and the Trinity--Christocen tr ic Theology of God
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You guys are getting over my head again!
I don't have problems at all with the humility of saying "all God's talk is baby-talk" or that it is "anthropomorphic." What I have problems with is that it seems to me traditional (I know Meph does like "classical" label) folk claim to know "the real" God who is "behind" or "above" the baby-talk! To claim that God is immutible, impassible and the rest is certainly to claim to know ALOT about God. And then, having somehow gotten all this philosophical knowledge, they say all the verses that don't agree with this philosophical portrait of God are merely "anthropomorphic." I feel like they're saying, "We mature adults can see through the baby-talk. Those silly Open Theologians don't." If its all baby talk, maybe we should admit that we're all babies. So if God says "I may change my mind," we babies should conclude, "I guess God CAN change his mind."
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
01/09/01 6:19 PM
RE: Just Being Honest
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beso,
Hmmm...I'm sorry if all this is getting over your head. I will make every endeavor to simplify things as much as possible, ok? But anyways, some points of response...
You say:
"What I have problems with is that it seems to me traditional (I know Meph does like "classical" label) folk claim to know "the real" God who is "behind" or "above" the baby-talk!"
Mephi:
Maybe I'm not reading any of the posts that have been placed on this thread correctly. I don't see anywhere where anyone is claiming to know the God behind the baby talk as it were. Indeed, it seems as if you may really not be looking at what is actually being said. Lion is affirming (and I agree)that no one can truly know God as he truly is. We can only know God as he reveals himself to be, through his condescension for that process of revelation. So, who in the world here purports to know God as he truly is, the God above the baby-talk? From what I'm hearing, I think what you mean to say is this...
"By saying that God is more than his"anthropomorphic" self-revelation, you are implicitly claiming knowledge of God's true nature."
If this is indeed what you are saying, then I would like you to notice that what you are saying doesn't even logically follow, let alone is it warranted by the posts that have been placed here.
You say:
"To claim that God is immutable [sic], impassible and the rest is certainly to claim to know A LOT [sic]about God. And then, having somehow gotten all this philosophical knowledge, they say all the verses that don't agree with this philosophical portrait of God are merely "anthropomorphic." I feel like they're saying, "We mature adults can see through the baby-talk. Those silly Open Theologians don't."
Mephi:
Beso, I have mad love for you. But at times, I think that you may pour much more melodrama into this stuff than is necessary. It seems like once again, the issues are being neglected and personal shots are being taken. Let's get beyond this, people. Please! To my knowledge, neither I or any other non-openness person who has spoken on this board has exhibited the type of self-righteous superiority that the tone of your statement implies. Frankly, I'm sick of the veiled ad hominems and non sequitors. I ask all to please read the arguments and thoughts presented and deal with them and only them. I ask all to please not drag in extraneous material into issues where specific questions necessitate specific answers. Please stop seeing the arguments that confront thoughts and ideas as personal attacks that warrant personal attacks in kind. This is far beneath all of us. If you disagree with a point, then address your concern and have the consideration to provide reasoning for your disapproval. Again, I'm not saying that sarcasm, satire, jocularity, and all that shouldn't be employed in posts. What I am saying is it's high time to stop using these rhetorical methods to avoid the true issues. It gets old...really quick. My even mentioning this in this manner should illustrate what I mean. I don't know about anyone else, but I've come here to discuss some very important theological subjects with fellow believers and engender healthy, yet vigorous critical thinking on these issues. If I want drama and endless overemotional special pleading, I can always turn on some sitcom or something. Please, brothers and sisters, let's stick with the issues. I beg you...seriously...
If anyone is offended by what I've just said, I deeply apologize. It wasn't meant to embarrass or harangue anyone. It was meant to sharpen our collective focus so that we can have more light than heat in this whole thing.
Your humble servant,
Mephi2K
PS: Beso, you didn't answer the questions in red. Care to do so, milady? @}---/-------
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
JoeMoore
01/10/01 12:20 PM
RE: Open Theism and the Trinity--Christocentric Theology of God
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(note: I started a thread with a copy of this note. PLEASE don't answer it here. The thread is called Uncertainty Principle.)
I'll bite on Mephi2K's question about the Uncertainty Principle. Please realize that what I think about this is many, many orders of magnitude below my primary belief system.
(also, notice that I'm not using any psuedonym here--I think it's a serious question that deserves a serious answer. But at the end of the day what I think about it is of no importance--only the reality of the situation. And we may never know that even after we've lived with Him for 1/2 of eternity , , . If you think I believe that 1/2 of eternity has any meaning don't bother to read any farther.
OK, what do I think (I won't use the word 'believe'--my world view and faith does not hinge on this)?
It makes sense to me that God may have created a universe in which it is not important to His control of that universe that He know the position and momentum of each subatomic particle (or maybe any subatomic particle) in order to excercise whatever level of control He chose (before the creation of that universe) to have over that universe.
There. I said it. Would I deny the belief if someone threatened to put a stake through my heart? Yes, because I don't think I can articulate it to a level that would make any sense to the person asking. Would I deny that I said what I wrote above if you looked me in the eye and asked about it? No, I've written what I've written.
By the way, Lion-Lamb and Mephi2K, my overall theological system is probably much closer to yours than to Dr. Boyd's (to pick on him because he is the specific host of this list). However, I would challenge you to ask God each day before you join this forum if you are being really honest when you say you mainly want to listen and learn. That is an extremely difficult position to put yourself in.
Joe Moore
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
01/10/01 1:37 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Open Theism and the Trinity--Christoc en tr ic Theology
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm glad beso said what she did because I have had the same frustration. I interpreted her post as an expression of her own frustration rather than a personal attack on anyone in particular. But, since I agree with her, perhaps I'm not as sensitive to how someone who disagrees might interpret her statements. So I invite those who may feel implicated by what I say below to hold me accountable if my attempt at honest expression approaches ad hominem in spite of my intentions.
Why does Lion-Lamb feel that the key to refuting open theism is in a proper understanding of anthropomorphism? It seems to me that it is because anthropomorphic readings of texts in which God expresses emotions, change of mind or plans, or uncertainty regarding some of the future, enables classical theologians to maintain their convictions about God's impassibility, immutability, and their understanding of God's sovereignty (which is threatened by anything less than omni-control and exhaustive definite foreknowledge). A proper understanding of anthropomorphisms thus becomes code for harmonizing what the Bible says about God with classical theology about God.
Lion-Lamb, Mephi, or whoever, perhaps I have completely misunderstood your emphasis on a proper appreciation for anthropomorphism, but this is the impression I have gotten from classical theists who appeal to anthropomorphic readings of texts that seem to contradict classical conclusions about God's ontology. I invite your correction.
I did a lot of reading while I was away on vacation for a few weeks, and this quote from Karlfield Froelich (Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Princeton University) struck me as relevant to this thread. I welcome your (whether open theist or otherwise) comments:
"Biblical language does not come as a monolithic block of truth from which any busybody can quarry bits and pieces for his or her own agenda. It is not a meteorite of 'holy material' concealing a system of 'Bible doctrines' that the theologians must tease out. Biblical language in all its various forms is an invitation to our faith--nothing more, but also nothing less....If the God of the Bible did not speak in the 'tongue of angels' (1 Cor 13:1), which he certainly could have done, but instead employed human speech and language in all its vulnerability--a miracle of love no less astonishing than that of the incarnation!--then it is clear that God does not want to compel or force us into anything..."
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Lion-Lamb
01/10/01 3:05 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Open Theism and the Trinity--Christ oc en tr ic Theology
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G-D-G,
Welcome back to the forum. I trust you had a nice break.
My note will be very brief, perhaps too brief. But I'm hurried at the moment. I just wanted to let you know that you did not properly assess my concern over anthropomorphism as to why it is crucial in this whole discussion. For I most definitely do not promote the idea you guessed at, namely to maintain a classical view of God. Actually, I hope I made it clear, I have a serious criticism of Classical Christian Theology as it presently expresses itself concerning figurative language, including anthropomorphism. I believe I indicated a concern with Bruce Ware's God's Lesser Glory.
I stopped by the forum for a quick look. I thought I should drop a note to you so that you may review what I have said and draw a more accurate understanding. Then, perhaps, we can talk when I have an opportunity to return to the forum.
Gotta go for now,
Lion-Lamb
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
01/10/01 3:10 PM
Ooops. Meph's a dunce...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oops. Joe made clear instructions to post on the other site. I didn't. Look over there now for my reply. In the immortal words of Homer J. Simpson: "D'oh!"
Meph
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
01/10/01 3:08 PM
Sup, G-D-G!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G-D-G:
Hey, lady! Whassup with ya? Let me get into this real quick...
You said:
"I'm glad beso said what she did because I have had the same frustration. I interpreted her post as an expression of her own frustration rather than a personal attack on anyone in particular. But, since I agree with her, perhaps I'm not as sensitive to how someone who disagrees might interpret her statements."
Mephi:
I hear you, and I understand what you mean. It was clear to me about the frustration that she felt. That was not a problem at all. What was a problem (at least for me) was that she ended up overstating her case to the extent of caricature and implicit downplay of other. We all make mistakes like this, and I understand that as well. But, I wanted to make it clear that 1) it happens more times than it should and 2) it truly hinders discussion for some people. I truly hope that my statement was taken not as a brutal thrust of a knife, but a noisome, but necessary piecing of the needle in an attempt to mend the growing tear in a beautiful piece of clothing.
You said:
"Why does Lion-Lamb feel that the key to refuting open theism is in a proper understanding of anthropomorphism? It seems to me that it is because anthropomorphic readings of texts in which God expresses emotions, change of mind or plans, or uncertainty regarding some of the future, enables classical theologians to maintain their convictions about God's impassibility, immutability, and their understanding of God's sovereignty (which is threatened by anything less than omni-control and exhaustive definite foreknowledge). A proper understanding of anthropomorphisms thus becomes code for harmonizing what the Bible says about God with classical theology about God."
Mephi:
I may be wrong, but it seems here that you are insinuating that the primary reason that anthropomorphism is a consideration to some people who critique open view theism is a pragmatic one. What I hear implicitly in this is this:
"If it weren't for the fact that classical theologians feel that anthropomorphism harmonizes the Biblical view of God with THEIR view of God, it may well not be a decent consideration to them at all"
If I'm wrong in this, I'm sorry and neglect what I'm about to say. If this is in some way true, then I must say that you are partially correct. Indeed, SOME classical theists may have a very pragmatic view towards anthropomorphism in biblical interpretation using only for their own agenda. (If I'm not mistaken, I think that Lion said something close to this) But, assuredly this is not the case for ALL who critique open view theism. To be honest, the importance of the idea of anthropomorphism, for many, comes as a result of one's bibliology and doctrine of revelation. Let's look at your man's quote here...or a piece of it anyway...
"If the God of the Bible did not speak in the 'tongue of angels' (1 Cor 13:1), which he certainly could have done, but instead employed human speech and language in all its vulnerability--a miracle of love no less astonishing than that of the incarnation!--then it is clear that God does not want to compel or force us into anything..."
Mephi:
See anything in here a tad similar to the Bavinck quote that Lion posted? How about God using the human speech and LANGUAGE "in all its vulnerability"? Two words: necessary condescension. I don't know the full theological view of this Froelich person, but I do see some evidence in this short quote that he (she?) may have believed that revelation itself is anthropomorphic, as God "bends down", as it were, in order to communicate with human beings. I would ask you to answer my 2nd question above. In doing that, really think about what anthropomorphism means. That's part of the reason why I asked the question in the first place. As one answers it, one will see why many classical theists find the topic of anthropomorphism so important.
I'm outta time. Gotta bail. Good to hear from ya!
Peace out,
Mephi2K
| | Back to Top | | |
 | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:11 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 |
|
|