Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > Summary and Critical Review of the Anthropomorphic

Forum Quick Jump

83 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4

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

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/26/2001 6:57 PM (GMT -6)

RE: RE: RE: RE: Installment #2 Necessary Summary Thoughts on Image of God

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boyd here again, responding this time to Lion-Lamb's questions.

LL, I DO see that you are not saying the same thing that Bruce Ware is saying. I DO see how you are distinct from most classical theists on this issue. And as you framed the matter in your last installment, I don't think I even disagree with you, at least not much. All communication from God to us must be in human categories, hence "human-like." In this sense all revelatory language is anthropomorphic. It is rooted in analogies with the human self.

But I do not see that this gets us far in resolving the openness of God debate. We both hold that God truly is revealed in this language, though not in his full transcendence. I take this to mean that God truly and, in a transcendent way I can scarcely imagine, changes his mind, experiences regret, surprise, disappointment, experiences aspects of the future as "maybe" "if" "perhaps" (because he speaks this way). I take the language of openness to reflect 'as through a darkened mirror" (I Cor 13) something of the glorious supremacy and sovereign transcendence of the infinite Creator. You draw very different conclusions, however. You conclude from the anthropomorphic nature of God-talk that God in his tanscendence does NOT do these things.

How does the understanding that God-talk is anthropomorphic, which I in principle accept, resolve this dilemma?

As far as I can see, Lion-Lamb, the difference is not in our philosophy of language, but in the understanding of divine transcendence we bring to the text. (If I were totally honest and not afraid of being offensive, I'd say "you bring to the text" -- for I think I get mine right out of the text. [smile face]. But I know you'd return the compliment, so what's the point of saying it? So I won't. [smile face again, but bigger].

For my part, I do not see how you can affirm that the openness motif (regret, disappointment, etc.) truly reveals God, and yet deny that God's transcendence is characterized by these things. You know my opinion here, so it won't surprise you. But I suspect that its because you presuppose that God in his transcendence CAN'T TRULY face a partly open future, and hence, whatever else you take the opennness language to mean, it can't mean that God actually is like this in his transcendent self. I know you will adamantly deny this, and I respect the integrity of your denial. But my question is honest. If God saying he changes his mind doesn't mean that God -- in a transcendent way we can only understand in our categories -- truly changes his mind, what does his saying his changing his mind truly reveal about him?

As I noted in my previous posting with Pilgrim, my whole beef is really that the awareness of the "anthropomorphic" nature of God-talk gets played out differently -- and I think arbitrarily. Whatever YOU mean and whatever YOU do that allows you to conclude that God in his transcendent self really does plan every detail of the future because, in your reading, that is what Scripture says (despite its anthropomorphic nature) THAT is all I want to say about the openness motif. You draw ontological conclusions from certain passages (the control motif) that you do not draw from other passages (the opennes motif). I'm simply a voice in the wilderness saying, WHY? If all scripture is anthropomorphic, and all truly reveals God, and yet we are capable of drawing ontological conclusions about God's transcendence from SOME of scripture, why not these others?

And the answer, note, cannot be "because all God-talk is anthropomorphic."

The classical tradition relegated the openness passages to a lower level of revelation (viz. the ability to say how God is in his transcendence) because they took the "control motif" to be the exhaustive description of how God really is, and thus felt it was contradictory to ALSO affirm openness. I argue that neither motif requires that it be interpreted as the exhaustive depiction of God, in which case there results a beautiful complimentary playing-off of openness and control, not a contradiction. I don't know if or how this applies to you, but it may. If so, that is an exegetical issue.

Which is why I have affirmed that the real issue is exegesis, not philosophy of language.

Final word... I'm sorry I'm often unable to respond to you (and other postings) more speedily. I really enjoy this exchange and find it beneficial. But at this point in time its the best I can do.

Blessings brother,
in Christ

Greg

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/26/2001 6:57 PM (GMT -6)

RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Installment #2 Necessary Summary Thoughts on Image of God

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg,

I tried, but I could not restrain myself from offering a brief response to your note in reply to Pilgrim.

Hmmmmm! Again, I wonder if you have really grasped what I have been arguing. You said,

I don't see any biblical reason for saying ONE set more perfectly exalts God's transcendence. (I strongly suspect a metanarrative drives this selection -- a prejudgement about what is and is not worthy of God). I think both motifs reveal -- equally -- the way God really is. They speak authentically, and truly about God as he truly is, as he is in and of himself.

Haven't you heard me persistently arguing that both motifs (as you call them) equally portray God. Face it! Your disagreement with me is not over whether or not both kinds of biblical passages equally portray God. Perhaps that's your beef with Bruce Ware and some others. But that cannot be your beef with me, for I insist that whether God portrays himself as regretting or electing, in both passages God equally portrays himself to us.

The point of dispute, therefore, is precisely where I've been pointing all along. It does concern the nature of revelation (God reveals himself in human form and likeness, not as he actually is) and the nature of language God employs to portray himself to us (philosophy of language). Both of these are completely bound up with exegesis of Scripture with a proper intuitive sense of the Creator-creature distinction I have already discussed.

I end with a brief comment on your closing supposition: If we allow the two motifs to fill each other out, we can affirm BOTH as true and indicative of God's transcendence. What do you think I have been arguing for? I have been the one, from the beginning of my engaging you on Romans 9-11, to insist that we must allow both kinds of biblical passages to fill each other out without taking one kind of biblical passage to nuke the other, the kind of thing I called you on several times in the discussion of Romans 9-11. I have argued consistently that we must affirm BOTH as true and indicative of God's transcendence. Have I been too unclear?

Again, I stand in amazement that my arguments have sailed past you without apprehension. But again, I'm willing to take the blame, for I must be expressing myself too obtusely. Thoughts and ideas that are crystal clear in my head apparently become muddled when I express them with written words. Does anyone have suggestions I might adopt to clear up the mud? Perhaps mud will forever hang in suspension in everything I say or write.

Pondering,
Lion-Lamb

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/26/2001 6:58 PM (GMT -6)

RE: Here We Go...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mephi,

You spoke well for me. I, on the other hand, must have lost any ability to be clear. I've got to recover some capacity to avoid opacity and return to transparency and not just translucency.

Lion-Lamb

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/26/2001 6:58 PM (GMT -6)

RE: Here We Go...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boyd here -- again -- this time responding to Mephi2k.

Mephi says:
"As you all remember, he [Doc] made the statement that if he found "Calvin's God" to be completely TRUE, that he would reject Him. Now ask yourselves this question: On WHAT grounds would Doc reject Him? It can't be a matter of truth, because Doc's been presented with the truth. So what's the matter? It's Doc IDEA of how Deity should behave! Hear this well!"

Response: Mephi2k, this is silly. Like I will hold onto my thought KNOWING its not true. Are you referring to your little thought experiment a month or so ago about what we would do if we got to heaven and found out Calvin was right? If so, aren't you distorting what I said there just a wee bit? I had quite a few qualifications in that game, as I recall. If I truly concluded that Calvinism was true, I'd obviously believe it was true. But, AS I SEE IT NOW -- THIS was the point of the game, wasn't it? -- I'd feel morally obliged BY GOD HIMSELF to resist such a God if I got to the other side and found him there. And, AS I SEE IT NOW (since I don't think that Calvinism is true), I think he'd congradulate me for it! But to argue that my belief is not based on TRUTH on the basis of this game -- in which my response was predicated on my NOT believing that the Calvin view of God is true -- is a red herring of an argument if ever there was one.

Meph says: "In Doc's concept, a christological God (God that TRULY is represented by Christ) HAS to have a system in place where libertarian free will exists and where God's revelation doesn't "misrepresent" Him. But as you can see, all this is PURELY a priori!

Response: Ah, not quite Mephi. I find the power of contrary choice all over the place in Scripture. As to my argument that god's revelation can't "Misrepresent" him -- isn't this tautological? It wouldn't be much of a "revelation" if it DID misrepresent him. So I wouldn't rate that as an a priori either. (Consider: "Boyd holds to the a priori belief that revelation can't misrepresent what it reveals".???? That's like saying "Boyd holds to the a priori belief that A can't be -A").

Mephi says: "Doc would look God right in the "face" and say "I reject you" because of his moral wiring, but this moral wiring is nothing more than a euphemism for his a priori suppositions of a "worthy, Christlike" God."

The Doc responds: The moral wiring is not a euphemism for anything. Its just moral wiring. And, in the game, it was predicated on how I experience the wiring now. If I get to heaven and it turns out Calvin is right, I'm assuming I'll have different moral wiring, since the wiring I have now couldn't call THAT God perfectly good or loving. THAT, again, was the point of my rather tongue-in-cheek answer to your thought experiemen).

As to the a priori "supposition" for a "worthy, Christlike" God, this is my conclusion, not my a priori supposition. I never would have dreamed that God was like the crucified Jew if he hadn't told me this. Nor would I ever dream God would so involve himself in human affairs that we can affect him, change his mind, grieve his heart, etc... unless he told me this.

Mephi2k says: "I've said all this to say this: I believe that open view theism is based on inadequate exegesis and philosophical inquiry BASED ON AN A PRIORI VIEW OF DEITY. Remember exegesis doesn't take place in a vaccuum. The open view makes a MORAL a priori about Deity and then builds a philosophical and theological structure around that".

Doc responds: You can of course believe what you like. But if you're going to convince anyone, you need to show the inadequate exegesis. (THAT IS the right issue).

As to the a priori view of deity -- Meph2k, Open Theists aren't the ones crying out "God can't really be like this" when we come upon passages in which God speaks of the future as an "if" or "perhaps," passages in which God reveals his inner thoughts about what he THOUGHT would likely happen, but didn't, passages in which God tells us his inner heart by revealling his intentions, only to change them in perfect transcendent response to prayer and people's changed dispositions, or passages in which God reveals his heart by telling he regretted making humans, or Saul king of Israel. The a priori here is that Scripture means what it says, not that God must "fit this depiction of transcendence" and therefore CAN'T be the way Scripture says.

Meph2k, I can appreciate your frustration about being grouped with classical theists who perhaps (you seem to acknowledge) have an a priori view of what deity is like. But I don't think you further your cause by turning around and doing this with me or Open Theists in general -- unless you have more substantial evidence to back it up than what you offered here.

I know your mind: its wonderful. So I'm thinking you sort of whipped this posting off more out of frustration than clear-headedness.

Got to run,
love ya

Greg

ps. If you're worried, or at least suspecting, that I'm in any way offended by your depiction of me in this posting, don't. People have tried to deliberately insult me (not saying you were) and I don't get it until my wife points it out. No hard feelings -- at all.

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/26/2001 6:59 PM (GMT -6)

RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Installment #2 Necessary Summary Thoughts on Image of God

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg,

No need to apologize on being delayed to respond. I understand. I'm having the same difficulty to find time to maintain much continuity on the board.

Let's see if I can overcome some of my opacity. I'm going to try to teach you how to make a smilie face. Type a colon followed immediately by a closing parenthesis. Don't put a space between the two. Then when you click on "Preview," you will see a smilie face.

Cheers!
Lion-Lamb

P.S. If my instructions on making a smilie face are clear enough so that next time I read a note from you and see a smilie face, I'm going to take that as a small indicator of some movement from opacity toward transparency.

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/26/2001 7:00 PM (GMT -6)

Mephi Explains His Actions

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Doc (and whoever else is reading this),

Doc, you guessed RIGHT, sort of. Indeed, the previous post was "whipped up", to be sure. If my note seemed abrupt or curt, that's because it essentially was. So I apologize for the lack of clarity and elaboration. I saw Doc post on the board to Lion-Lamb, and I wanted to catch him while I thought he might still be actively watching the board. With his schedule, I know it's hectic and it's rare to get Doc accessible on the board nowadays. He's been away for a bit. I wanted him to interact with what I said, thereby giving me something with which to go on in a clarifying post that could incorporate his response. I had to get some early impressions of my "raw" thinking. (I probably let too much of the cat out of the bag about the other thread...but oh, well...) So, having said all that, I'm sorry for any inconvenience it may have caused. PLEASE don't think that this was just a pejorative vent session, ok? Far from it. I'd never insult you, Doc, or anyone else in the room. Glad you caught that.

[Digression: I really must say! It does my heart so much good to know that people have read enough of my writing to tell when something is uncharacteristic of me. As you all well know from my other posts, I endeavor to keep a consistent portrayal of myself on this post so that people can see my heart and my head. Moreover, so that when there are "outliers" in my postings, someone will know something's up. I guess it's been working. Oh, bravissimo! ]

At any rate, school's really getting into swing and it may be a while before I can repost on this subject, but when I do, I think that you'll notice the difference. Again, if any inconvenience was caused, I'm really sorry. I'll get the post up as soon as I can.

Quite Pleased,
Mephi2K

PS:
Doc, you prolly noticed the unimpressive post title too, huh?

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/26/2001 7:00 PM (GMT -6)

RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Installment #2 Necessary Summary Thoughts on Image of God

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Boyd,
Thank you for your response to my questions. I patiently waited because I recognize we all have other responsibilities.

I have difficulty with the way you described your thought for these reasons.

1. The terminology of “openness passages” and “predestination/control passages” prejudices the discussion by requiring us to fit our understanding of Scripture in a “predestination/control” thought pattern (however that is understood) and an “openness” model (whatever that means). It seems to me that very language betrays your thought about the two “different sets of passages” and it furthermore demands your readers to accept these categories in order to understand the sacred text as you desire. We should never chop up Scripture as “Arminian passages” and “Calvinist passages,” for example, or “humanity texts” and “deity texts,” because we then compartmentalize divine revelation.

2. Your language appears to me to set biblical text against biblical text as if the self-revelation of God consists of incompatible disclosures of his consistent self.

Thank you for clarifying your meaning by saying, “I think both motifs reveal -- equally -- the way God really is. They speak authentically, and truly about God as he truly is, as he is in and of himself.” I understand you to mean all Scripture speaks genuinely about God and we should believe it regardless of what is revealed. While I am grateful for this clarification, I think my two points still stand.

To illustrate, consider 1 Samuel 15:11, 35 and 15:29. Do 1 Samuel 15:11 and 35 belong to the “openness passages” while 1 Samuel 15:29 falls in the “predestination/control passages”? If so, the one textual unit has been cut asunder and compartmentalized in two pigeonholes. I take your clarification to mean we must believe both statements in 1 Samuel 15 are truthful revelations of God. I wholeheartedly agree. But I read you and all other Open Theists at this site saying, “God repents”, but I do not read any one of you saying, “God is not a man that he should repent.” It seems an OT is on a one-way street since “God is not a man that he should repent” is subservient to “God repents.”

How God is using language in 1 Samuel 15 will become clear only by exegesis. So far in this chat room I have not seen any OT exegesis of this text or the same type of language as it is used elsewhere in divine revelation. But I have heard a lot of expostulating on ideas that should be superimposed on the text in order to understand it. The only way we will know how God used language is to observe him using it, such as in 1 Samuel 15. To be clear, I don’t care how anyone says God is suppose to use language. Show me from the text how God used language. Are we people of the Book or not?

Pilgrim

PS: Have any of you noticed how the use of smiley faces, etc., helps communicate through this veil called a chat room? Yes? No?

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/26/2001 7:01 PM (GMT -6)

GregBoyd

01/25/01 8:52 PM

RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Installment #2 Necessary Summary Thoughts on Image of God

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello A_Pilgrim.
.
A few brief responses to your questions, and then a word in response to Lion-Lambs last positing in response to me.

You say, "We should never chop up Scripture as “Arminian passages” and “Calvinist passages,” for example, or “humanity texts” and “deity texts,” because we then compartmentalize divine revelation"
I understand your point. But isn't it inevitable, if not necessary, to discuss biblical motifs? Doesn't the conviction that "Scripture must interpret Scripture" require this? I agree that there is a certain arbitrariness in breaking down Scripture according to a "control" motif and "open" motif. We could "slice the pie," as it were, many other ways (e.g. judgement motif and forgiveness motif, etc.) But then again, how else can we talk about revelatory truth that arises from the biblical narrative?

Maybe you or someone else could recommend a different strategy for this problem: I see many people, scholars and otherwise, basing their views about the future on a set of passages (which I call the control motif). I want to point out a series of passages that I think need to be given equal attention (which I call the open motif). How can I discuss this?

Pilgrim says: "Your language appears to me to set biblical text against biblical text as if the self-revelation of God consists of incompatible disclosures of his consistent self."

Doc: My whole point is that the two motifs are perfectly compatible, even complimentary, so long as we don't universalize either one (which, I argue, neither motif exegetically requires). I think the truth of Scripture is that the future is partly open and partly settled. I find this to not only be non-contradictory: it is the view we all presuppose in our daily lives, with every decision we make.

Pilgrim says: "consider 1 Samuel 15:11, 35 and 15:29. Do 1 Samuel 15:11 and 35 belong to the “openness passages” while 1 Samuel 15:29 falls in the “predestination/control passages”? If so, the one textual unit has been cut asunder and compartmentalized in two pigeonholes. I take your clarification to mean we must believe both statements in 1 Samuel 15 are truthful revelations of God. I wholeheartedly agree. But I read you and all other Open Theists at this site saying, “God repents”, but I do not read any one of you saying, “God is not a man that he should repent.”

Doc: While I Sam 15:29 is often cited as supporting the view that the future is exhaustively settled, I do not think it at all belongs in the "control" motif. I agree with you that this passage (as with all passages) must be read in the context of the whole literary framework it is a part of.

The framework here is that God has announced to Samuel that he is changing his promise to Saul that his family would reign and be blessed for all generations (I Sam. 13). He regretted making Saul king ( I Sam. 15:12, 35). Samuel prayed all night for God to change his plan -- again -- and not revoke Saul's kingship. God said no. Samuel announces this to Saul, at which point Saul, for selfish reasons, pleads with Samuel. In response to THIS request, God says that "God does not LIE and is not a man that he should repent."

In the context of this narrative, Samuels statement is not about a universal, exceptionless, attribute of God. It is in response to Saul's pleading. Samuel is saying, I believe, that while fickle humans may change their minds in response to this kind of pleading, God does not. There are several other places in Scripture (don't have them off the top of my head) where God says he will not [in this case] change his mind. There comes a point where God says "Done" (cf. e.g. Jer. 15:6). But the fact that he doesn't change sometimes proves that he DOES change his mind other times.

The classical alternative is to do what Bruce Ware does and take I Sam. 15:29 as an absolute, exceptionless principle, and then to declare that I Sam. 15:12 and 35 can't mean what they say. (Lion-Lamb and Mephi2k do NOT do this. THAT is playing texts off one another in the manner you are against -- and I agree with you totally.

Finally, in response to Lion Lamb. I have not misunderstood you, I don't believe. I know that you have insisted, along with me, that you affirm that we must let all texts -- both the "control" and "openness" motifs -- truly reveal God. But the interesting thing is that when we do this, we come to radically different conclusions. Which tells me the disagreement isn't over the nature of language.

The disagreement, from my side of the monitor, can be expressed as a question: How can you say that passages that speak of (say) God regretting decisions or being disappointed truly reveal God, but then deny that God truly regrets decisions or changes his mind?

I sincerely believe you WANT to believe you allow both motifs to reveal God. But I don't think you succeed. You IN FACT don't treat both texts the same. WE could make headway, perhaps, if you could make it clear how you believe passages that speak of God regretting, being disappointed, surprised, declaring to us expectations that didn't come to pass, speaking of the future in terms of "if" and "maybe", etc. truly reveal God, while denying that God truly regrets, is disappointed, surprised, has expectations that don't come to pass, changes his mind, or sees the future in terms of "if" and "may be."

And note, so far as I can see, your answer CAN'T have anything to do with this "anthropomorphic" nature of language -- for, on your own account, this much is true of passages that speak of God foreknowing the future, controlling the future, etc...

If my smiley face worked , I thank you for your tip. Now tell me, how do you make BOLD letters?

Appreciate you and Pilgrim.
Greg Boyd

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/26/2001 7:01 PM (GMT -6)

RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Installmen t #2 Necessary Summary Thoughts on Image of God

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Boyd,
Bold letters are made by inserting 3 characters before the letters to be made bold and inserting 4 characters at the end of the bold section.

The first 3 are: <, b, >. Type the 3 characters together without the commas. By leaving the commas out, HTML recognizes it as the code to make the following letters bold.

The last 4 are: <, /,b, >. Leave out the commas and HTML turns the bold off. If I left the commas out, HTML would hide the <,b,> and make the letters bold.

Pilgrim

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/26/2001 7:01 PM (GMT -6)

RE: True Knowledge of God Is Not Knowledge of God as He Truly Is In Himself

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg,

I realize that you believe you understand what I have argued. I surely don’t intend to insult you or anyone else when I claim I have not yet been understood. However, your responses continue to show, at least to me, that my arguments have not yet been grasped. To support your claim that you have understood, you say,

I know that you have insisted, along with me, that you affirm that we must let all texts -- both the "control" and "openness" motifs -- truly reveal God. But the interesting thing is that when we do this, we come to radically different conclusions. Which tells me the disagreement isn't over the nature of language.

Earlier you lodged the disagreement at the level of exegesis. Of course, I would agree that you are partly correct. However, I insist that to say that is wholly inadequate, for the exegesis you do and the exegesis I do is controlled by fundamentally different theologies of language. Earlier you used the expression, philosophy of language. In the case of biblical revelation, I would suggest that it is far more a matter of theology of language, for if one is wrong with reference to the nature of God’s self-revelation in his creation, his written word, and his incarnate Word—all having to do with the Creator accommodating himself to his creatures by entering into the created order to make himself known—then one’s exegesis of Scripture will be misguided to one degree or another. Thus, I believe both you and Bruce Ware need to adjust how you read the biblical text. Bruce’s adjustments are not nearly as great as the adjustments you need to make. Yet, the fact that both of you need to make adjustments, from where I sit, indicates that the issue that divides us is certainly exegetical, but fundamentally hermeneutical. And when I say hermeneutical, I mean to say the theology of language God employs to make himself known to his creatures.

You make the case that the disagreement reduces to one simple question.

The disagreement, from my side of the monitor, can be expressed as a question: How can you say that passages that speak of (say) God regretting decisions or being disappointed truly reveal God, but then deny that God truly regrets decisions or changes his mind?

I sincerely believe you WANT to believe you allow both motifs to reveal God. But I don't think you succeed. You IN FACT don't treat both texts the same. WE could make headway, perhaps, if you could make it clear how you believe passages that speak of God regretting, being disappointed, surprised, declaring to us expectations that didn't come to pass, speaking of the future in terms of "if" and "maybe", etc. truly reveal God, while denying that God truly regrets, is disappointed, surprised, has expectations that don't come to pass, changes his mind, or sees the future in terms of "if" and "may be."

And note, so far as I can see, your answer CAN'T have anything to do with this "anthropomorphic" nature of language -- for, on your own account, this much is true of passages that speak of God foreknowing the future, controlling the future, etc...

I fear we have reached an impasse. Your argument would have me go in circles. The answer to your question is inextricably bound up with what I call the theology of language that concerns God’s self-revelation. Despite your claim, the answer I must offer has everything to do with the anthropomorphic nature of God’s language of revelation.

Your question, quoted above, itself discloses that my earlier arguments have not yet made an impact. If I were to make another attempt to answer your question, I would have to traverse the same territory I have already walked. On the basis of the question you raise, here is why the fundamental issue at stake concerns the nature of language and in particular a theology of language concerning God’s self-revelation. You frame the question as follows: How can you say that passages that speak of (say) God regretting decisions or being disappointed truly reveal God, but then deny that God truly regrets decisions or changes his mind? The placement of the modifier truly is absolutely crucial as I have argued before. God gives us true knowledge of himself by disclosing himself to us as if he were a human. However, the true knowledge God discloses to us by showing himself to us as if he were a human does not mean that we now know God as he actually or truly in himself. If my knowledge of God necessarily depends upon the Creator’s accommodating himself to me the creature, am I to reason that when God reveals himself to me as if he were a man that now I know God as he actually or truly is in himself? The fact that all my knowledge of God derives analogically means that the analogy will always entail both comparison and contrast, for the relationship between God as Creator and me as creature is that I am made in God’s image and likeness. So, when God shows himself to us by entering into the created realm, as if he were a creature as we are, he shows himself to us in terms suited to creaturely experience. Thus, entering into the drama of redemptive history as the principal character in this drama, God does not show himself to us as he actually or truly is in himself. Instead, God represents himself to us as if he were a human, as if he were a human who regrets his appointment of Saul as king. Would I be correct to conclude, then, that God, as he is in himself as God, actually changes his mind? No! I don’t believe so. To make sure we don’t come to such a wrong conclusion, God also reveals a contrast that must be kept in mind concerning the analogical relationship between Creator and creature. He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a man, that he should change his mind (1 Sam 15:29).

The analogical relationship that God established between us and him, namely the image of God (imago Dei), entails both likeness (similarity) and unlikeness (difference), for any image, by definition, is only like the thing it reflects. Thus, it is crucial that we hold these truths in mind whenever we think about God and his self-revelation. Think of what God has done. God created the heavens and the earth out of nothing and then lowered himself to enter into his creation as a player in the drama that takes place on the stage of earth that is fit for creatures. When God condescended to engage his creatures on the stage he created, he also accommodates his discourse and interaction with his creatures in terms of his creatures. This means that God employs speech that is creature talk. It means that God enters into historical sequence and movement as if he were a human, yet God as he truly is in himself, is not bounded by earth history that had a definite beginning and moves toward a consummation. (Note carefully I did not say time but earth history.) Furthermore, true as it is that God reveals himself to his creatures as if he were a human by accommodating himself to humans who cannot escape the confines of human language, the bounds of earth history, the restrictions of acquiring knowledge by observation, we would be seriously mistaken to reason that God as he truly is in himself is like we are—confined to the sequences of earth history, restricted to human language, and bound to acquire knowledge by observation. I submit that there is far more than exegesis that stands between your thinking about God and my thinking about God. What separates us is the very manner in which God has made himself known to us, especially God’s making himself known to us as if he were a human.

At an impasse,

Lion-Lamb

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/26/2001 7:02 PM (GMT -6)

Are you applying your theory consistent ly?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lion-Lamb, In 1 Sam. 15:10, God says, "I regret that I made Saul king..." In your response to Greg Boyd, you say, "Would I be correct to conclude, then, that God, as he is in himself as God, actually changes his mind? No!" But part of your rationale behind rejecting this conclusion is that God "reveals a contrast" in 1 Sam. 15:29, which suggests that the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a man, etc. If we are consistent in our treatment of the anthropomorphic nature of all God's self revelation, as I think you are advocating in your theology of language, then why should our conclusions regarding 15:10 be any different than 15:29? In other words, wouldn't a consistent conclusion go something like this: "Would I be correct to conclude, then, that God, as he is in himself as God, actually does not lie or change his mind; or is not actually a man? No!"

I agree that analogies entail both comparison and contrast. The difference between your exegesis and Boyd's doesn't seem to lie in whether or not God's self-revelation is analogous/anthropomorphic, but in what comparisons and contrasts are entailed by the analogies. For example, Boyd concludes that God's analogous revelation of changing his mind is in some (but obviously not every) sense comparable how we change our minds, whereas you emphasize the sense in which this analogous self revelation contrasts with how we change our minds. Just curious--in your opinion, in what sense is this particular self-revelation comparable to how humans change their minds?

GDG

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/26/2001 7:03 PM (GMT -6)

RE: Still consistent !

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G-D-G,

You ask whether I am applying my theory consistently. You say,

If we are consistent in our treatment of the anthropomorphic nature of all God's self revelation, as I think you are advocating in your theology of language, then why should our conclusions regarding 15:10 be any different than 15:29? In other words, wouldn't a consistent conclusion go something like this: "Would I be correct to conclude, then, that God, as he is in himself as God, actually does not lie or change his mind; or is not actually a man? No!"

Let me try to figure out what you are saying. 1 Samuel 15:29 states, He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a man, that he should change his mind. Your reasoning on this betrays the fact that you are conceiving of anthropomorphism simply at the level of individual texts. I do not. Remember, our discussion long ago concerning what you called the broader sense of anthropomorphism? You continue to operate with a concept of anthropomorphism which is not mine and I have not endorsed or defended. That is why you suppose that I am inconsistent. With the narrow definition of anthropomorphism that you are still using, I suppose I would be inconsistent. But, I’m not inconsistent because I’m not operating with your concept of anthropomorphism. May I suggest you review the lengthy discussion? I’m sorry I do not have time to devote to another round of lengthy explanations concerning my views on how God reveals himself to us as if he were a human. I have argued that all God’s revelation to us entails figurative portrayals of himself, of which anthropomorphism is the principal manner of self-portrayal in five major relationships: (1) Father and children; (2) Husband and wife; (3) King and subjects; (4) Judge and litigants/defendants; (5) Lord/Master and servants. I have not deviated from what I argued from the beginning. I continue to operate on those same principles. So, no, I am not inconsistent with my own viewpoint.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I’ve noticed something curious. You and several open theists keep referring to 1 Samuel 15:10 when I believe you intend to refer to 1 Samuel 15:11. Greg Boyd does this in God of the Possible (p. 56). Did you pick it up from reading his book? I just strikes me as an unusual quirk of several open theists.

Now I turn to your assessment of what the differences are that stand between Greg and me. I grant you the right to your own opinion concerning the point of disagreement between Greg Boyd’s exegesis and my own. However, your assessment of the matter is bound up with your continued lack of grasping what I have addressed above. You say,

The difference between your exegesis and Boyd's doesn't seem to lie in whether or not God's self-revelation is analogous/anthropomorphic, but in what comparisons and contrasts are entailed by the analogies.

However, I do not share your assessment of the matter. Here’s the basic reason. Greg Boyd, in God of the Possible, clearly does not regard the portrayal of God in 1 Samuel 15:11 to be anthropomorphic, that is portraying God as if he were a human who regrets. In God of the Possible he plainly rejected the idea that the language of 1 Samuel 15:11 entails anthropomorphism. Consider his discussion that just precedes his consideration of 1 Samuel 15.

The open view is rooted in the conviction that the passages that constitute the motif of future openness should be taken just as literally as the passages that constitute the motif of future determinism. For this reason, the open view concludes that the future is literally settled to whatever degree God wants to settle it, and literally open to the extent that God desires to leave it open to be resolved by the decisions of his creations. This view, open theists argue, is truer to the whole counsel of Scripture, truer to our experience, and offers a number of theological and practical advantages as well. . . .

Because of the dominance of the classical view of foreknowledge with its overemphasis on the motif of future determinism, much of this material may be unfamiliar to the reader. However, this material is just as much a part of the inspired word of God and needs to be taken just as seriously as more familiar passages. I will argue that the passages that constitute this motif strongly suggest that the future is partly open and that God knows it as such. I will also argue that the classical explanation—that these verses are less literal than those expressing future determinism—is unwarranted (Boyd, God of the Possible, 54-55).

The differences that stand between Greg’s view and my view are enormous, for at issue is the nature of how God reveals himself to humans. He believes that 1 Samuel 15:11 portrays God literally. That means, 1 Samuel 15:11 portrays God just as he is—God actually repents and changes his plan midstream. Why does Greg believe what he believes? Here is why. Greg believes that 1 Samuel 15:11 is one passage that fits what he calls

the biblical motif of future openness. These passages suggest that the future is partly open just as clearly as the passages that constitute the motif of future determinism depict the future as partly settled. Put together, and taken at their face value, these two motifs lead us to the simple conclusion that the future is partly open and partly settled (God of the Possible, p. 86; emphasis added).

On the next page Greg says,

On the other hand, if we simply accept the plain meaning of Scripture, we learn that God sometimes regrets how decisions he’s made turn out. . . . If we do not read into this material a philosophical preconception about what God must be like, we have no problem affirming this motif of future openness alongside the motif of future determinism” (God of the Possible, p. 87; emphasis added).

Greg’s approach to reading the Bible is one that denies that a passage such as 1 Samuel 15:11 is anthropomorphic. He reads such passages at face value. He claims he simply accepts the plain sense of Scripture, especially such passages as 1 Samuel 15:11. I call this naïve literalism. Mephi has extensively discussed what he properly calls naïve realism. This so-called face value reading of such texts, hermeneutically speaking, is naïve literalism just as the whole approach to God’s self-revelation philosophically/theologically entails naïve realism.

I’m going to think about how I should address this hermeneutical impasse at which we find ourselves. I have to assess whether or not my restricted available time should be spent addressing this issue. I seldom encounter such an impasse as I have encountered here. Usually I am able to make my thoughts and concepts clear to those with whom I dialogue. I have to evaluate how I can communicate things to make them clearer, for I’m surely not here to confuse or to be obtuse.

Still consistent,
Lion-Lamb

P.S. Concerning your closing question, I have given the answer in the final paragraph of my last note to Greg. But remember, for the sake of my argument, you must both understand and grant my whole argument concerning the nature of God’s revelation as figurative portrayals in earthly categories, particularly self-portrayals as if he were human.

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/26/2001 7:03 PM (GMT -6)

huh?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LL, Please demonstrate the following claim: "Your reasoning on this betrays the fact that you are conceiving of anthropomorphism simply at the level of individual texts." What is your evidence that I am operating with a narrow definition of anthropomorphism, and how do you get this from statements like, "If we are consistent in our treatment of the ANTHROPOMORPHIC NATURE OF ALL GOD'S SELF REVELATION..."? (my emphasis).

GDG

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/26/2001 7:04 PM (GMT -6)

Plug to G-D-G

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yo. This is completely off subject here, but I was wondering if you'd say something on my "Sound Off!" thread about the "Dogmatism" subject. I'd really be interested in what you are thinking about it.

Peace out,
Meph

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/26/2001 7:04 PM (GMT -6)

RE: Huh? What?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G-D-G,

Yes, your statement seems to acknowledge what I have consistently argued. For you do say,

If we are consistent in our treatment of the anthropomorphic nature of all God's self revelation, as I think you are advocating in your theology of language, then why should our conclusions regarding 15:10 be any different than 15:29?

Perhaps I did not make myself clear. When I responded, Your reasoning on this betrays the fact that you are conceiving of anthropomorphism simply at the level of individual texts, I was pointing out that the latter part of your question is what “betrays the fact that you are conceiving of anthropomorphism simply at the level of individual texts.” Despite your acknowledgment in the first half of your question, I was seeking to point out that the latter half of your question virtually nullifies any real acknowledgment you seem to make in the first half. Also, your attempt to suggest consistent reasoning (In other words, wouldn't a consistent conclusion go something like this: "Would I be correct to conclude, then, that God, as he is in himself as God, actually does not lie or change his mind; or is not actually a man? No!") indicated to me that you still do not grasp my argument, even though you make the statement, If we are consistent in our treatment of the anthropomorphic nature of all God's self revelation, as I think you are advocating in your theology of language. . . .

Perhaps I’ve completely misjudged you. If so, I’m sorry. Somehow my conversations with you just don’t go well. It seems I’m too dense to be able to communicate with you.

Cogitating,
Lion-Lamb

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/27/2001 1:15 AM (GMT -6)

RE: RE: Huh? What?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LL,

I assume your conclusion regarding 1 Sam. 15:11 exemplifies a broad understanding of anthropomorphism: "Would I be correct to conclude, then, that God, as he is in himself as God, actually changes his mind? No!"

You claim that my following conclusion based on 1 Sam. 15:29 betrays a narrow understanding of anthropomorphism: "Would I be correct to conclude, then, that God, as he is in himself as God, actually does not lie or change his mind; or is not actually a man? No!"

ON WHAT BASIS?
GDG

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/27/2001 1:15 AM (GMT -6)

Mephi Attempts To Mediate

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok. I'm gonna try this...hang on...

What I feel Lion-Lamb is saying:
When we are saying that all divine revelation of God to humanity is anthropomorphic, we IMPLICITLY say that naive realism with regard to divine revelation is UNTRUE. We are conceiving of anthropomorphism in the broader usage, not merely in the literary light. Therefore, any statements in the Bible refer to God in terms of humanity. In Scripture, either God does things that appear to human beings AS IF HE WERE A HUMAN BEING (comparison) or God says things about himself that distinguishes himself FROM human beings (contrast). Both of these fall withing the realm of the broader usage of anthropomophism.

What I feel G-D-G is saying:
It seems to me that you are doing exactly the SAME thing that Dr. Boyd is doing, except you are doing it for different Scriptures than he is. He says that his scriptures in 1 Samuel give indication of God "really" changing his mind. You are using other scriptures to say that God "really" DOESN'T change his mind. If NONE of the Scriptures can detail what God "really" is, then how are you selection of Scriptures any more valid than Dr. Boyd's? To be consistent, you would have to say this, Lion: "Neither Dr. Boyd's NOR my own selection of Scriptures can tell what God is really like" It is for THIS reason that I posited the Tillichian agnosticism.

Again, Lion-Lamb:
You don't seem to get what I'm saying. First of all, Greg and I have two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT epistemological positions from whence we are approaching the Scriptures. As I have shown, he is using a LITERALISM, face value reading of the text, that is indicative of a NAIVE REALISTIC approach to Scripture. One cannot say that all divine language is anthropomorphic and yet, say what Greg says about the text. I think that the misunderstanding must be because you are relying upon the narrower view of anthropomorphism.

Again, G-D-G,
Nope. Maybe you mistook me. I'm not dealing with the different levels of anthropomorphism. I'm dealing with that APPLICATION of the broader anthropomorphism that you use. From what I see, neither you NOR Dr. Boyd can make ANY statements about how God is in reality. THAT'S what I'm saying. How can you make the statement "God is NOT a man" and expect that to reveal God as he "truly" is if NO divine revelation can express exactly how God is in reality? On what BASIS is your statement made?

This is where you guys are now, I think. Let me go further...

***********************************************

What I would say if I were Lion-Lamb:
Oh, ok. I think I see now, G-D-G. Well, that's relatively easy to answer. You have to understand WHY I believe the statement "God is not a man" has any meaning. Remember my epistemological stance and how it relates to Scripture. I take the Scripture AS IT STANDS being the divine revelation, and I measure Scripture with Scripture to see how God chooses to reveal himself. I don't hold to ANY preconceptions of what God must be. The revelation itself is all I have to go on, EVEN though I realize, given my suppositions, that this revelation MAY not directly coorespond to what is being revealed.

Moreover, I think about this logically. Either God IS a human being or God is NOT a human being. There is no middle ground there. I believe that there is ample Scripture to show that God is NOT a human being. I see that God is 1)invisible 2)intangible 3)such that he fills all space [heaven and earth] and 4) spirit Also, there seems to be ample Scripture to say that God predated existence and that God is wholly "other" than all of his creations including humanity which he created in his image. This information has some very important consequences to my thinking of God. Using this information I can see HOW God is to be contrasted from humanity. Now, it becomes CLEARER why Scripture should be understood anthropomorphically. Not only does this work well with critical realism, but given the text, it plain makes sense. If God is indeed so transcendent from humanity, then OF COURSE the various theophanies, "burning bush" sightings, etc...are mere ACCOMODATIONS that the "holy" God uses to communicate with finite human beings.

Now, I carry the thought. Anthropopathisms fall WITHIN the sphere of these accomodations that we are speaking about under the rubric of anthropomorphism. The expressions of emotion, pathos, etc are amazingly HUMANLIKE traits. We could say that that Image of God within us that give us our emotions, pathos, etc are representative of the REALITY that is in God. But that has some problems. We realize that our emotions and pathos are INEXTRICABLY tied to what we go through as human beings. Our fears, anxieties, etc are ALL tied to our all-too-human experience. However, the revelation indicates that God is NOT human. God doesn't HAVE the human impetuses that would ellicit this humanlike traits. It would seem that we are attributing human traits to God, but saying that it works the other way around. Moreover, if God IS indeed so transcendent, wouldn't it make sense that in order to communicate with human beings, especially about issues of morality or emotion, God would have to condescend and speak on THEIR terms, even though he is NOT human? Even our very calling God the masculine pronoun "HIM" should hip us to what is going on...

Let's think about our methodology of using clearer Scripture to interpret less clear Scripture. It is VERY clear that God is NOT a human being and that He is "wholly" other than all creation, including human beings. To say that the Imago Dei bridges this gap of "otherness" such that our human actions and emotive characteristics are a DIRECT CORRELATION to God's is QUITE problematic. If it is CRYSTAL clear that God is NOT human, how shall we interpret the Scriptures where God appears to do things that make him seem AS IF HE WERE HUMAN? Hmmm...it is reasonable that we say that those acts fall under the rubric of ANTHROPOMORPHISM in that though God is not human, he appears to do things that ARE characteristically human. Well, now. This fits well with how God has ALWAYS revealed Himself to human beings. Always analogically. I'm thinking of the theophanies and everything. Even God Himself has said that NO HUMAN BEING (save Jesus who was God) has seen him as He truly is...indeed they CANNOT.

Taking all this, I ask myself this question:

Is it easier and more consistent to interpret God's supposed humanlike acts IN TERMS OF God NOT being human and being wholly other than all creation infinitely...

OR...

is it easier and more consistent to interpret God NOT being human and being wholly other than all creation infinitely with God's actions that SEEM humanlike, but are in actuality, HIS acts in ultimate metaphysical reality?

I choose the former. It is much more easy and consistent to interpret God's supposed humanlike acts in terms of anthropomorphic necessity! I don't have to have a naive realistic worldview. I don't have to posit inauthenticy on God's part. I don't have to posit libertarian free will for my stuff to work. I don't have to go BEYOND the text of Scripture for my findings, either. I think this is the best way!

Now, I know what you are asking yourself. "How do you KNOW that what you are seeing in the divine revelation is 'truly' what is?" It is here that the faith comes in. I put FAITH in and TRUST in the revelation. Even though, given my critical realism suppositions, I acknowledge that there is a distinction between the revelation and the revealed, I believe there is sufficient evidence wherewith I can place my trust in the revelation. Notice this is a FAR cry from foisting naive realism on the whole thing so that I have assurance at the expense of coherency. It is this Kierkegaardian leap of faith in the revelation that allows me to do this.

Summing up, I use the revelation and interpret it in terms of ITSELF. Using that information in faith, I give a faith commitment to the view of God found within. That simple. THAT's how I can say that God is NOT a human and that statement have meaning.

End.

***********************************************

Hopefully, Lion would agree with this...but this is definitely what I would say.

Peace,
Mephi2K

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/27/2001 1:16 AM (GMT -6)

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/27/2001 1:16 AM (GMT -6)

Response to Warren: "Against Heresies?" (Big Ups to Irenaeus)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crud. One bad case of heartburn and I'm up at this ungodly hour. Oh, well...Hmmm...ok....let's go to work..

You ask:
I think I would ask you to define "human". If the scriptures assert this as a standard of contrast/comparison for God then it is essential and critical for our understanding of its meaning.

Mephi:
Being "human", to me, would encompass these things:
1) Being a creation
I think this is a no-brainer here. We are creations of God and in that way, we have a crucial link to all things around us, including the earth.

2) NOT being God
This insures that we don't fall into some type of pantheistic monist belief. All creations, including human beings, are NOT God. Period. Nor will they EVER be God per se. (Over and against Mormonism and some extreme views of Orthodox "divination") Creations are distinct from God.

2) Being limited
This, I feel is a no-brainer too. The universe itself, as expansive as it is, has limits, we now know. Human being, due to their corporeality at least, are limited beings. So goes their mental, physical, and emotional capacities.

3) Being composed of spiritual and non-spiritual components in a conditional unity.
I believe, along with many other evangelicals, that human beings are composed of spirit and matter in a conditional unity, which means for all intents and purposes, the material and immaterial portions of the human being form a unitary WHOLE that is inextricably linked.

4) Being created in the Image of God
Now here's the tricky one. This doctrine, I believe, gets manhandled so much to fit specific agendas. But what we have is the fact that we are made such that we reflect something of God. I believe that the image should be thought of as primarily substanstive, rather than just the relational or functional views. I also personally believe that it centers around sentience, rationality and will, as well as our spiritual nature. NOTE WELL that this is a REFLECTION, necessarily analogical, NOT a direct correlation, to God.

I hope this gives a decent view of what I mean by "human"

You say:
"This definition segues nicely into the definition of the incarnation; God (spirit) possessing a material body; subjecting Himself to its confines and restrictions. It gives us the 1 to 1 comparison between ourselves and God Himself to which the Scriptures assert and allude. This is essential for the Scriptural assertions of the Cross and its implications both legally and personally."

Mephi:
I apologize, but I think that is a gross oversimplification of the Incarnation. There are many other religions that have accounts of deities taking on human flesh and walking the earth. From what I hear you saying, that's exactly what God did. He just put himself in a "flesh suit", as it were, and came to Earth. I think to speak of the Incarnation in those terms has a great chance of almost lending itself to a type of Apollinarianism, a heresy condemned by the Church which denies Jesus' full humanity by stating that what happened in the Incarnation was that the Logos of God merely displaced the human soul normally in place in the human being. Again, God in a "flesh suit" It had the same practical effects of Docetism in that it DENIES the full humanity of Christ, at least implicitly. Be careful, my friend. The Incarnation is much more than that, according to the Chalcedonian Creed.

Moreover, it seems to me that you are equating the conditional unitarian formation of human beings with the structure of the Incarnation. ANOTHER no-no. Two different animals, my friend. In doing this, you reinforce the, I think, artificial dictum of potential direct correlatability of man to God because in Christ, at least, we are both formed exactly the same way. The Cross is important because Christ was FULLY man and FULLY God, a vast mystery in and of itself. But if you truly take what you are saying to its logical conclusion, as I have alluded to before, you deny the first part of that important truth. Again, be careful.

You said:
"The necessity of piety (no offence) to draw sharp distinction between man and God to me would invalidate the incarnation, essentially forcing God to either NOT be human or NOT be God. The comparison between Christ and man demands a continuity of essence thus elevating man beyond pietistic boundaries."

Mephi:
Heh. No offense taken. At any rate, I'm sure that you can already tell THAT and WHY I disagree with what you've said. Remember. Human beings are CREATIONS, which by definition in the Christian worldview, makes them NOT God. Very important, if we are not to fall into heresy. Futhermore, it seems that you draw too heavy a conclusion from Christ being God. You are actually saying that there MUST be a "continuity of essence" between God as he truly is ontologically and humanity because Christ was God and human. I think that is an unwarranted jump, UNLESS you are directly taking the Apollinarianism route, which means you definitely have problems.

You say:
Lets say, just for argument, that God subjected Himself to the material restrictions of cause/effect, that He stripped or emptied Himself of spiritual freedom and tested Himself just as we are tested. What we would have then is "humanity" being a subset of the Spiritual realm, a demonstration of its construct frozen into a temporal setting for testing, even demonstration, purposes; GOD IS HUMAN, by definition. "Humanity" then becomes an adjective rather than a noun. It is something which is applied to an ontology rather than an ontology itself. (Emphasis mine)

Mephi:
OUCH! Nails on a chalkboard, nails on a chalkboard! Stop the torture! LOL Just kidding. hehe... But seriously, man, I see some big problems here. First of all, you are grossly simplifying what it means to be human within the Christian worldview context. Look at my delineations of humanness again. Second, you are RADICALLY redefining humanness to incorporate God into the paradigm. (In my best Georgia southern drawl) "Well, hush mah mouth, suh. What would lil' ol' Karl Barth have to say 'bout that?"

Summing up:
Looking at what you've said, I think that your designation of "human" is at best, incomplete, and therefore incompatible with the Christian worldview. Therefore, your critique of my answer to G-D-G is unpersuasive. Sorry.

Thanks for speaking up, though.

In Christ,
Mephi2K

PS: Tomes? I am the KING of tomes on this board. You think the "Mediate" post was bad... LOL

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/27/2001 1:17 AM (GMT -6)

RE: Response to Warren: "Against Heresies?" (Big Ups to Irenaeus)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Crud. One bad case of heartburn and I'm up at this
> ungodly hour.

Three words: Tagamet HB 200.

> Oh, well...Hmmm...ok....let's go to work..
> You ask: I think I would ask you to define "human".
> If the scriptures assert this as a standard of
> contrast/comparison for God then it is essential and
> critical for our understanding of its meaning.

And as we listen to your definition(s) I would remind you of my original objection:

The necessity of piety (no offence) to draw sharp distinction between man and God to me would invalidate the incarnation, essentially forcing God [Christ] to either NOT be human or NOT be God.

> Mephi: Being "human", to me, would encompass
> these things: 1) Being a creation I think this is a
> no-brainer here. We are creations of God and in
> that way, we have a crucial link to all things
> around us, including the earth.

My children are of my production (my wife played no small part) and yet they are "human" biologically speaking. In the same way spiritually we can be of God's production and still be of His "kind" (appealing to the axiom of Spirit = Spirit, Flesh = Flesh). I see your distinction therefore to be of no relevance. Moreover, if we take the requisite of being a creation for being "human" then, as I pointed out earlier, Christ COULDN'T have been human or Christ COULDN'T have been God, take your pick.

> 2) NOT being God This insures that we don't fall
> into some type of pantheistic monist belief. All
> creations, including human beings, are NOT God.
> Period. Nor will they EVER be God per se. (Over
> and against Mormonism and some extreme views
>of Orthodox "divination") Creations are distinct
> from God.

Just as my children will NEVER be me on a physical level neither will I EVER be "I AM" on a spiritual level. Once again I see your distinction therefore to be of no relevance and once again I would point out that by your definition of "Humanity" Christ COUNTN'T have been human for He wasn't "created" or He couldn't have been God if he was.

> 2) Being limited This, I feel is a no-brainer too. The
> universe itself, as expansive as it is, has limits, we
> now know. Human being, due to their corporeality
> at least, are limited beings. So goes their mental,
> physical, and emotional capacities.

To this I would point out that you have no idea what your "limitations" are for you are presently enslaved to a system which hides your innate and essential composition. The Scriptures repeatedly point out that this present cosmos is an anomaly in God's universe, it is an artificial bubble maintained for a purpose. We are NOT as we appear for we WILL and in fact DO transcend this material limitation. Hence, by your definition, WE are not "human" and neither was Christ.

As an aside I would like to note that you referenced "2)" twice, I assume you LIKE "2)". (Blazing Saddles)

> 3) Being composed of spiritual and non-spiritual
> components in a conditional unity. I believe, along
> with many other evangelicals, that human beings
> are composed of spirit and matter in a conditional
> unity, which means for all intents and purposes,
> the material and immaterial portions of the
> human being form a unitary WHOLE that is
> inextricably linked.

To this I would point out that we do not require a body to exist therefore our material "possession" is not essential to our function and thus our spiritual essence and our biological possession is NOT, according to the Scriptures, inextricably linked. The Scriptures repeatedly assert we possess a body and by definition what we possess is NOT what we ARE. Therefore because Christ existed without a physical body and because WE will exist without a physical body your definition would deny both our and Christ's humanity.

As an aside I would like to note that your appeal to consensus is lost on me. What "many other evangelicals" believe has no weight in this argument.

> 4) Being created in the Image of God Now here's the
> tricky one. This doctrine, I believe, gets
> manhandled so much to fit specific agendas. But
> what we have is the fact that we are made such
> that we reflect something of God. I believe that the
> image should be thought of as primarily
> substanstive, rather than just the relational or
> functional views. I also personally believe that it
> centers around sentience, rationality and will, as
> well as our spiritual nature. NOTE WELL that this
> is a REFLECTION, necessarily analogical, NOT a
> direct correlation, to God.

So Christ was more than human, or more "human" than we. How do you deal with the fact that your definition of "human" requires a "made" aspect demanding that Christ was "made" or that Christ WASN'T human?

> I hope this gives a decent view of what I mean by
> "human"

You see, I believe that the formal/orthodox definitions are cheated and skewed, based in mysticism and unfounded presupposition. The very important touch stone of the incarnation demonstrates there is more, or less as you might assert, to this than meets the eye.

> You say: "This definition segues nicely into the
> definition of the incarnation; God (spirit) possessing
> a material body; subjecting Himself to its confines
> and restrictions. It gives us the 1 to 1 comparison
> between ourselves and God Himself to which the
> Scriptures assert and allude. This is essential for
> the Scriptural assertions of the Cross and its
> implications both legally and personally."
> Mephi: I apologize, but I think that is a gross
> oversimplification of the Incarnation. There are
> many other religions that have accounts of deities
> taking on human flesh and walking the earth.

What these many other religions assert is neither here nor there to me however what the Scriptures assert is a one to one comparison between Christ and man:

Heb 2:17 For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people.

The point of the incarnation was the Creator of All would subject Himself to the same conditions He applied to His creation, subject to the same law, in the same way, with no cheated additions. If Christ was more or less "human" than we then His life proved nothing, according to the Scriptures, for He was NOT like me, therefore I require of your definitions to genuinely reflect the exact same parameters for the two; Christ and Man, as the Scriptures demand.

> From what I hear you saying, that's exactly what
>Goddid. He just put himself in a "flesh suit", as it
> were, and came to Earth.

Yep, that's exactly what I am saying and precisely what the Scriptures claim. His "flesh" was a tent which enabled Him to walk this earth EXACTLY as we, under the same conditions and with the same restrictions. The flesh "suit", as you call it, would be assumed at His birth and "laid" down at His death, and most importantly, taken back again at His resurrection.

> I think to speak of the Incarnation in those terms
> has a great chance of almost lending itself to a type
> of Apollinarianism, a heresy condemned by the
> Church

Ahh well, we are all heretics to someone.

> which denies Jesus' full humanity by stating that
> what happened in the Incarnation was that the
> Logos of God merely displaced the human soul
> normally in place in the human being. Again, God
> in a "flesh suit" It had the same practical effects of
> Docetism in that it DENIES the full humanity of
> Christ, at least implicitly.

Here we come to the cheated definition of "human" and its holistic and arcane understanding of the term in antiquity. The ancients viewed ourselves as a single whole; a mystical blend of material and immaterial elements constituting a "human". The idea that our bodies are nothing more than simple machines whose parts can be mixed and matched, replicated and modified, animated through strictly material means would have been outright heresy. But, as you see, this is the truth, the maintenance of the old argument notwithstanding. Therefore with their understanding of "human" they concluded, in their declaration of heresy, that God did not create a human; defined body and spirit/soul, and displace the soul with His own essence, and in point of fact I do not assert such.

Again I would point out that it is their own definition of Humanity which refutes their own argument, denies the incarnation and our exact kinship with Christ.

> Be careful, my friend. The Incarnation is much
> more than that, according to the Chalcedonian
> Creed.

I am willing to believe it is however I would point out that so far your definition of "humanity" denies Christ's humanity and/or our own.

> Moreover, it seems to me that you are equating the
> conditional unitarian formation of human beings
> with the structure of the Incarnation. ANOTHER
> no-no.

Let's see, you are asserting: a) being human requires a conditional unitarian formation, b) Christ WAS human but c) Christ wasn't subject to a conditional unitarian formation. I hope you can see my argument against your position.

Either Christ was like us "in every way" or He wasn't. You remind me of my son who told me middle school was exactly like elementary school... only different.

> Two different animals, my friend.

Not according to the Scriptures, my friend.

> In doing this, you reinforce the, I think, artificial
> dictum of potential direct correlatability of man to
> God because in Christ, at least, we are both formed
> exactly the same way. The Cross is important
> because Christ was FULLY man and FULLY God, a
> vast mystery in and of itself.

No, the "mystery" you see is artificially created through the use of errant and contradictory definitions; human, God. When human is understood as an extension of the spirit in a confined material reality then the incarnation has meaning for it is merely nothing more than a spiritual being possessing physical/material form and being confined to its restrictions. Thus with this understanding we can understand "fully God" being "fully man" for it is nothing more than an extension of His spiritual essence being confined to this material reality.

> But if you truly take what you are saying to its
> logical conclusion, as I have alluded to before, you
> deny the first part of that important truth. Again,
> be careful.

As I have demonstrated it is you, in my opinion, who mitigates and in fact undermines the incarnation by either denying though your definitions Christ's humanity and/or His divinity.

> You said: "The necessity of piety (no offence) to
> draw sharp distinction between man and God to me
> would invalidate the incarnation, essentially
> forcing God to either NOT be human or NOT be
> God. The comparison between Christ and man
> demands a continuity of essence thus elevating
> man beyond pietistic boundaries."
> Mephi: Heh. No offense taken. At any rate, I'm sure
> that you can already tell THAT and WHY I
> disagree with what you've said. Remember.
> Human beings are CREATIONS,

Thus by YOUR definition Christ COULDN'T have been Human, you do see this I hope?

> which by definition in the Christian worldview,
> makes them NOT God. Very important, if we are
> not to fall into heresy. Futhermore, it seems that
> you draw too heavy a conclusion from Christ being
> God. You are actually saying that there MUST be a
> "continuity of essence" between God as he truly is
> ontologically and humanity because Christ was
> God and human. I think that is an unwarranted
> jump, UNLESS you are directly taking the
> Apollinarianism route, which means you definitely
> have problems.

To the Apollinarianism route, I would merely deny this via my definitions of human/God, and as to the potential of "definitely hav[ing] problems"... what can I say, you might be right.

> Summing up: Looking at what you've said, I think
> that your designation of "human" is at best,
> incomplete, and therefore incompatible with the
> Christian worldview. Therefore, your critique of
> my answer to G-D-G is unpersuasive.

LOL! Oh well, I hope this doesn't stop you from continuing this conversation.

Summing up my response, it is clear that your definitions are both contradictory and arcane. They are founded on a holistic perspective of our biological form and they disregard our transcendent condition apart from our material POSSESSION. Because of this your definition of "humanity" precludes Christ from either being God or being human, your appeal to mystery notwithstanding.

> Sorry.

Hey, where there is life there is hope, don't give up so easily.

--Warren

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/27/2001 1:18 AM (GMT -6)

RE: RE: RE: Huh? What?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G-D-G,

I’m sorry for any confusion I have caused. Mephi took a long road to mediate. I think he did well, though I may differ with some inconsequential detail here or there. Let me try the shorter road and hope it is clearer than what I have said earlier.

I have affirmed belief that all Scripture is anthropomorphic, for God has revealed himself to us as if he were a human. God has entered into his creatures' world and speaks our language. He has entered into human history as the principal character who talks about all matters in our terms, particularly of sequence that earth history entails. All this and more, however, does not nullify the fact that God reveals himself particularly through a variety of figures of speech and images. So, 1 Samuel 15:11 does entail a figurative portrayal of God in terms we call anthropomorphism. The same chapter qualifies how we should understand the figurative portrayal of God when the text indicates that God regretted appointing Saul as king. When Scripture makes such statements, we are not to make the mistake of thinking from ourselves to God, as if God changes his mind as humans do. No! Whatever 1 Samuel 15:11 portrays concerning God, it is most assuredly not that God does not know how things will turn out. It would be profoundly naive for anyone to read 1 Samuel 15:11 and think, as open theists think, that God did not know that Saul would turn out to be a poor king. It's naive, I say, because Scripture (God's own revelation) makes it clear that the kingdom shall be of Judah, not of Benjamin (Gen 49:8-12).

So, what does 1 Samuel 15:11 portray concerning God. God is pleased to portray himself to us as if he were a human who is moving along in the drama of the story as it unfolds. Literary anthropomorphism, such as we find in 1 Samuel 15:11, keeps us mindful that everything we read concerning God in his self-revelation entails his condescension to enter the world where we live, though he made it and set its boundaries and holds it together. Such passages make it clear to us that God, transcendent as he is, also is immanent. He is pleased to disclose himself to us as if he wears our likeness when in fact it is we who wear his likeness. Since, of course, we do not and cannot elevate ourselves to God's realm, doubly helpless as we are—not only creatures but sinful creatures, God condescends to our level to play out the drama of redemption in earth history, revealing himself to us as if he were a human but careful to remind us not to literalize the figurative representation and turn him into a creature, particularly a man.

Who can explain this God? He is above all, yet he has taken upon himself the likeness of humans to speak to them, to represent his role in earth history as if he were a human. How could God who is neither a creature nor inhabits creation convey to us his participation in the movement of redemption’s drama in earth history and do so in such a manner that is fitting to our creaturely roles including the fact that we inhabit a realm that entails cause and effect, decisions with consequences, etc.? God does not reveal himself to us with philosophical propositions. God does not reveal himself to us in abstracted theological categories. God reveals himself to us in history. Is God, therefore, conditioned by the history of his created order? I’m tempted to say, “Horrors! No!” But to be polite to my open theist readers, I’ll tone it down. “No!” And 1 Samuel 15:29 seeks to make that point, if you will hear it.

Lion-Lamb

P.S. There is a metanarrative, as some call it. We, however, don't have access to the metanarrative, which is God's own self-existent experience apart from and above his creation. God assures us of the chasm that separates the story to which we belong as creatures from that which wholly belongs to God. A host of biblical passages underscore God's transcendence (e.g., Eccl 5:2). Numerous passages make it plain that God has shown us only selective aspects of his being. The Lord of heaven holds us accountable for all things revealed (e.g., Deut 29:29).

Perhaps one could speak of a metanarrative that we will access in the final day. For the Scriptures hold out hope that there is coming a time of resurrection life when we will know as we are known (1 Cor 13:9-12). In this present world, our knowledge of God, true as it is, has a shroud over it. We cannot trace out all the tangled threads of God's revelation of himself this present cursed world. By faith we recognize that there is some pattern to it all, but we never get a peek at the face side of the tapestry. Even in the age to come our knowledge of God will be mediated through his Son. "It is at the times of suffering that we have to remind ourselves of the very core of Christian faith. There are other worlds than this. This world that seems so real, is no more than a shadow of the life that is to come" (from Shadowlands).

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/27/2001 1:18 AM (GMT -6)

: Response to Warren:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Warren,

I'm with Mephi. Your formulations don't resonate fully with my understanding of Scripture concerning being human or the incarnation. I am a holism. I am wholly human. Being human is far more than biological. Perhaps I didn't understand you correctly. If so, I'll take a Tagament HB 200 in the meantime.

Lion-Lamb

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/27/2001 1:19 AM (GMT -6)

Hmmmmm...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Warren:

Honestly, I'm straight up astonished. Not only at your light treatment of heresy, but also your statements in general. You've got some spunk, I gots to hand it to you.

This is what I'm hearing from your argument as a whole:

"The definition of Christ as defined by the Council of Chalcedon was, at best, incomplete. Humanity is NOTHING SHORT OF spiritual beings "in a confined material reality" In Christ, God was human in that He merely placed his spirit into a confined material reality. Badaboom, badabing. We have the Incarnation. This is a direct link between ALL humanity and the Christ: the fact that we are BOTH spiritual beings confined in material bodies"

If this is right, then, my friend, you are indeed a wholesale Apollinarian. No doubt about that.

Moreover you say that my definition of what it means to be human precludes Christ from being truly human. Here is what I said about being human.

1) Being a creation
2) NOT being God
3) Being limited
4) Being composed of spiritual and non-spiritual components in a conditional unity.

Hmmm...now I want you to do me a favor. In your minds eye, picture this picture of Chris qua Chalcedonian Creed. (I will assume here that you know this) Now, let's take away the divine aspects of this equation for a moment. Would we have a human being, according to my definitions? It seems to me that you are doing JUST what Apolonius and some other cats did trying to oversimplify the Incarnation. I've got MAD problems with your schema. But before I get into that...I need more info. Please answer the following question:

What is the difference(s) between "Theotakos" (Bearer of God) and "Christotakos" (Bearer of Christ) in your view? I am assuming that you know to WHOM the terms refer. Be specific, giving a thorough answer explaining your reasoning.

Your answer of this question will go a LONG way in helping me to reply to what you've said. Thanks.

In Christ,
Mephi2K

PS:
By the way, in looking at your post, I think that you may have a misunderstanding of what "conditional unity" means, as far as the human constitution. You may want to look that up. Just a hint.

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/27/2001 1:19 AM (GMT -6)

An Aside

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Warren,

By the way, does "CRI" in your name stand for Christian Research Institute, the organization associated with Hank Hanegraaff? Just wondering...cause I found the coincidence to be interesting.

Meph

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/27/2001 1:20 AM (GMT -6)

RE: An Aside

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, it references the initials of my Company with the last letter being "Inc." Sorry for the confusion.

warren

83 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:08 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

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual