 |
| 
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/26/2001 6:40 PM (GMT -6) |   | Summary and Critical Review of Anthropomorphic Debate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Discussion Board Friends Interested in the Anthropomorphism Debate.
Sorry I’ve been off the site for some time. Among other excuses, I forgot my password. (Those who know me well just said to themselves, "Of course.") Finding out what it is was more of a chore than I imagined. Plus, I've been yada yada yada....
At any rate, it seems to me the discussion over the anthropomorphic/ non-anthropomorphic nature of God-talk could use a summary. I have really enjoyed this dialogue, and sometimes been amazed at the insight offered. But the dialogue has now included so many different sub-topics that it seemed it could use a momentary stepping back and summing up. It’s a way of trying to ask, where are we now, and perhaps renew our focus. (Or, it may just be me that feels the need for this summary because I've been "out of the loop" for a spell. If so, consider this a cathartic experirence for the Doc.) This may also give a chance to newcomers who can't go back and read our tomes a chance to get up to speed and maybe join in.
I’d invite others to offer their summaries as well. If you’ve followed and/or participated in this debate, how would you summarize the issues? What were some of the stronger points made? Where are positions vulnerable? Where do you stand on this issue? Has the dialogue altered your position at all?
Though I hope it fairly represents all parties involved, this isn’t pretending to be an "objective report." It is rather a "personal reflection." It is definitely carried out from my own perspective and is sprinkled with my own opinions. I may in fact be a "niave realist," as Mephi argues, but, whateve else this label means, I'm not niave about the influence of our convictions on how we interpret everything.
Preliminary Word
: I deeply appreciate the intellectual sparring offered up by Meph2K and Lion-Lamb, as well as others from the traditional perspective. The time and thought you have poured into your postings are amazing. The patience exhibited is lauditory as well. Thank you, especially to the non-Openness folk. This chat-room would be much less interesting without you. I want to emphatically encourage this sort of honest monitor-to-moniter ("head to head") critical dialogue. Also, as the Skater recently said, its important to always remember that this is all about issues, never about people. It’s helpful sometimes to remind ourselves that no one knows each other personally on this site. This anonymity is a great advantage, I think. We are discussing ideas, not people.
Having said that, let me offer this.
The All God-Talk is Anthropomorphic Thesis
As I understand it, Lion-Lamb, Mephi2k and several others have been arguing that we need to recognize and take very seriously the inherent limitations of all God-talk. Through some creative analogies (thank you Mephi!) they have maintained that humans are finite beings who have a limited range of experience which alone grounds all meaningful discourse. God must speak to us from the inside of our finitude and limited experience. God must, in other words, reveal himself to us in human categories and in human form – anthropomorphically -- for we cannot understand any other sort of revelation. Hence, not only passages that depict God as "changing his mind" etc… but ALL of Scripture has an anthropomorphic quality to it. The "gap" between God’s infinitude and our ability to understand and speak it is itself part of the datum of revelation. To recall one illustration, its like a Chinese interpreter telling us that his translation is according to Western categories, and thus does not fully capture the meaning of the Chinese she'’ interpreting. At the same time, the interpreter offers us ways of trying to grasp the dimension that can’t be captured in the interpretation. So too, they argue, Scripture offers us ways of grasping the dimension that can't be captured in his human-oriented and thus human-limited revelation.
As I understand it, the central point of this argument is that if Open Theists understood the anthropomorphic nature of all God-talk, we wouldn’t suppose a "direct correlation" between God-depictions in Scripture and God’s actual nature. We would have more epistemological humility. To suppose that God DOES actually change his mind, experience surprise, regret etc… is to be a naïve realist at best (Mephi2k’s critique) or perhaps to fall into heresy at worst. In any case, we do not see God accurately if we take the God-talk of him changing his mind as depicting the way God really is in his transcendent aseity (viz. essential nature).
Have I understood the "all God-talk is anthropomorphic" thesis accurately?
Five Open Theist Critical Responses to the Thesis
As I read it, Open Theists have been countering this thesis on at least five fronts.
First, some Open Theists have questioned whether it is true that all God-talk is anthropomorphic (Beso may be the exception here). Since we are made in the image of God, might it not be better to analyze our God-talk as theomorphic? Of course we cannot grasp the infinitude of God. But is it the case that all our God-talk must to any degree misrepresent God? Does it mean, for example, that we shouldn’t think that God literally experiences something like surprise and disappointment (Isa 5; Jer. 3)? As Shine150 said, does not 2,4,6,8 reveal something literally true about the infinite set of all even numbers, even though it doesn’t do so exhaustively?
Second, several in the Open crowd have questioned whether Lion-Lamb and Mephi 2K are fully consistent in their belief that all God-talk is anthropomorphic, for they at times seem (to some of us) to presuppose some crucial non-anthropomorphic information about God. Indeed, Shine150, Ghost-Dog-Girl and I have in various ways suspected there is a non-anthropomorphic meta-narrative, as it were, that drives the anthropomorphized interpretation of the biblical narrative. The Skater (Shine150), for all his "yo dilly wha sup chill dude" verbiage, has been emphatic on this point. I think he has a point.
To illustrate: Lion expressed his view toward the end of the "Openness and Trinity" thread that God doesn’t foreknow the future because he sees the future; He rather foreknows the future because he plans the future. This seemed to Shine150 and others to be a non-anthropomorphic meta-narrative. Open theists wonder what grounds the meta-narrative. Lion has insisted that he gets his information directly from the biblical text. No one can doubt the sincerity of the claim. But Shine, Brandon, RevivalTheology, BBCanada and Ghost Girl ask, if this is true, what happened to the claim that ALL God-talk was anthropomorphic? Why does the anthropomorphic thesis not affect this alleged biblical data as much as the data about (say) God experiencing surprise (more on this below)? I labelled this "the entrapment difficulty." Are there degrees to which God-talk is anthropomorphic, and if so, what criteria is in place to adjudicate these degrees? Why is the statement "God changes his mind" given different treatment than the statement "God will not change his mind"? Where did the criteria that creates this different treatement come from? Also, does this not immediately thrust the debate back to exegesis, rendering the "nature of language" debate superfluous (more on this below)?
Third, Ghost- Girl and others have pressed the point that there seems to be no way to avoid a Tillichian sort of agnosticism if one is consistent with the view that ALL God-talk is anthropomorphic. Lion-Lamb (in "Trinity and Open View"thread) is offended by the association with Tillich, but from my perspective, the logic of the critique seems sound. If ALL God-talk is anthropomorphic, then what can we say is literally true about God? (Tillich, perhaps inconsistently, concluded we can only say that God is "being itself"). Along similar lines, I have argued that the statement "x is anthropomorphic in respect y" presupposes that we know that "x is not anthropomorphic in respect z." (My principle of contrast). Similarly, Shine150 has argued that the statement "God always reveals himself in human form" only has meaning if we know something about God apart from his revealing himself in human form (e.g. that he DOESN’T change his mind, experience surprise, etc.). But then, how can we say God "always" reveals himself in human form?
Along these same lines, some of us (esp. Ghost-Girl) have worried that if we stretch the category of anthropomorphicism to cover all God-talk, we compromise our ability to effectively talk about expressions that explicitly depict God as a human being (e.g. having a back side, arms, eyes etc.).
Fourth, some Openness folks like Ghost-Dog-Girl have responded to the charge of naïve realism by insisting that the Openness hermeneutic doesn’t entail this. More recently – and I felt this was extremely interesting – Meph2k very effectively exposed the naïve realism of Shine150 – and the dread locked dude conceded defeat – or victory (depending on how you spin it). (See the "anthropomorphism thread, 1/17). I believe that this dialogue was very illuminating.
Perhaps Meph and Lion-Lamb are correct in contending that there is a fundamentally different epistemology, based perhaps on a different ontology, that divides Open Theists and more classical theists? (I confess I found myself largely in agreement with Shine150). Now, I want to be careful here, for I don't know all that is being read into the label "naive realism." But at the very least, it does seem to be the case that Open Theists presuppose (or arrive at via argument) that there is a built in continuity between the human experience and God, a continuity classical theists perhaps deny. In Open Theism, we can know something of God's experience of surprise and disappointment because he made us in his image. Or, perhaps better put, because of this continuity we at least don't feel the need to deny that God really -- as he is in and of himself -- changes his mind, experiences surprise, disappointment, regret, etc...
If in fact Open Theism is guilty of the "naive realism" Mephi charges it with, is this a bad thing? Also, how might we make progress on whether naive realism or critical realism is true?
Fourth, Open folks have argued that Lion-Lamb and Mephi do not seem to deduce consistent implications from the awareness that all God-talk is anthropomorphic. Here is where the "gap" factor – the "as if" quality that Beso and I were earlier concerned about – comes into play. The "gap" factor seems to be brought to bear differently on passages that depict God as facing a partly open future than on passages that depict God as controlling the world, predestining the future, and so on. (See Criticism #2 above). As noted above, this is why some of us suspect there is a non-anthropomorphic meta-narrative that determines the principle of selectivity.
Whether or not this is true of Lion-Lamb and Mephi2k, I would argue that the classical tradition embraced a non-biblical ideal of divine perfection as changeless, timeless, actus purus, etc. – a meta-narrative about God -- which strongly influenced what in Scripture was allowed to speak of God as he truly is, and what was seen as anthropomorphic. Lion-Lamb and Mephi2k strongly resist this critique, for they hold that all God-talk is anthropomorphic. But I and others wonder if their claim has avoided this classical tendency toward selectivity after all.
Fifth, and finally, several of us have questioned whether the issue over the anthropomorphic nature of language really has any bearing at all on the Openness issue. The fact that John Sanders, an Open Theist, holds to this position supports this suspicion. Whatever one’s philosophy of language, it seems that this debate actually resolves around such matters as e.g. a) does Isa. 46 where God declares the end from the beginning include all the future, or only part of the future that God is going to control? b) Does Romans 9 tell us how God saves individuals or not? c) Do passages that depict God as surprised, disappointed, regretting and changing intentions intend to tell us how God really is, or not? These are exegetical questions. It is, it seems, passages such as these that ground the meta-narrative of the traditional perspective. (But are they being considered as anthropomorphic expressions in the process of playing this role?)
From my limited and biased perspective, this fifth point is perhaps the most important one. For the sake of argument, we could all agree that all God-talk is anthropomorphic and still be as divided on this issue as we were before. Let us grant for the moment the "All God-talk is anthropomorphic" thesis. Let us grant that there is a "gap" between who God is in and of himself, on the one hand, and how he reveals himself to us, on the other. This is a formal distinction devoid of content until we fill in it. But how one fills it in will depend, it seems to me, on a) how one interprets certain texts; and b) what one a priori deems to be "worthy of God." More traditional theists fill in the gap by positing a meta-narrative about a God who is unchanging, all determinative etc…. Only THIS God, they claim, is truly biblical and transcendent, and stands over and against the "anthropomorphic" depictions in Scripture. Open Theists would "fill in the gap" by positing a meta-narrative about a God who is supremely changing, influential and not determinative – for exactly the same reasons. Hence, it seems to me that the real issue is exegesis and a priori commits to dignum deo (what is worthy of God -- is that the correct Latin Meph and LL?), not philosophy of language.
Conclusion
For my part, I grant that all God-talk fails to exhaustively express the truth of God. Even the Incarnation does not exhaust God's being (hence the distinction between the Father and the Son). We can capture this truth by saying that "all God-talk is anthropomorphic," if we want, though I don’t think this is the best way to express it. (see Criticism #3). Nevertheless, I see no reason to grant that God-talk must ever misrepresent God. The Incarnation, the definitive revelation of God, reveals God truly, though not exhaustively. With Shine150, I would argue that because we are made in God’s image, because of the Spirits work in our life (the Spirit searches the deep things of God, 1 Cor. 2) – and because the Creator is both truthful and an expert communicator, I believe we are "wired" to know truth. We cannot express the infinitude of all even numbers, but we can know 2,4,6,8 (thank you Shine).
The issue, I believe, centers on this: Must language (think here of God being surprised and disappointed) misrepresent God, or not? Lion-Lamb and Mephi2k have repeatedly insisted that anthropomorphic language doesn’t misrepresent God. But, form my little vantage point, when they hold that God does not in himself "really" experience surprise, regret, or disappointment, then language that says he DOES experience surprise, regret or disappointment IS misrepresenting God at least as much as it is representing God (and I, with Acts9-out, don’t clearly see how it truthfully represents God at all).
One final word. Though I may (or may not) fit the label of "naive realist, I am not myself at all opposed to speculative theology – e.g. attempting to construct a meta-narrative about God. I believe it is profitable to try to pull together all strands of the biblical tradition and our theologizing about them as well as sound cogent reasoning and our experience to attempt to construct a metaphysical perspective of God and his relationship to the world. (This is what my book "Trinity and Process" does, though because it was a philosophical work, it minimized exegesis). What is of some interest, however, is that the result I get when I engage in this practice is VERY different than the result Lion-Lamb and Meph2k get.
I would argue that both the Bible and reason point to a Creator who (among other things) is a) everlastingly in sequence, not timeless; b) is supremely changing in some perfect respects as well as unchanging in other perfect respects (viz. not altogether unchanging); c) is by choice perfectly influential in some areas and determinative in others (viz. not omni-determinative); and d) knows possibilities (open future) as well as actualities.
I hope this critical summary and review has accurately represented all parties involved, was to the point, and will help focus our discussion. I hope it catches others up to speed so they can join in if they want to. I encourage others to comment on my critical summary and to offer their own. I appreciate the time, brain power, honesty and willingness to worth through misunderstandings that has characterized this debate, as well as all the debates on this site. I hope it continues.
Love in Christ
Greg Boyd ("the doc" as I am being labelled)
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/26/2001 6:42 PM (GMT -6) | | RE: Summary and Critical Review of Anthropomorphic Debate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe that Greg Boyd has accurately and fairly summarized what he calls The All God-Talk is Anthropomorphic Thesis. Actually, I must confess I was surprised how accurate the summary was, given the fact that we have spread it all over this discussion board. I think Greg rather nicely summarized the thesis, from my vantage point. Of course, I won't presume to speak for Mephi. Mephi, would you concur with me?
As to the remainder of Greg's tome, I have two things to say at present: (1) I cannot devote any response time to it presently. But I will, perhaps not all at once, but piecemeal. (2) Though Greg has fairly summarized the thesis I have argued, there are aspects of it that become confused when he offers his critique. I shall begin to interact with his critique, but first I believe I will compose a summary of my own view in order to keep in line with the intention of this thread.
Until I can buy some time,
Lion-Lamb
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/26/2001 6:42 PM (GMT -6) | | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg,
I forgot one matter in my earlier note in this thread. In order for me to offer a response to the critique portion of your tome, I need to request one thing. Your use of the expression metanarrative is not necessarily transparent. I find many authors use the term in a variety of contexts without explanation within those contexts. Thus, I'm often left wondering what various authors mean when they use the term. Would you take a moment to offer a crisp explanation of what you mean when you use metanarrative several times in your note. I'd appreciate it. Thanks.
Lion-Lamb
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/26/2001 6:43 PM (GMT -6) | | Ah, Yes! Sweet Stuff...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for your response, Doc! I would agree with Lion that your summary was pretty fair. I appreciate that! It gets the discussion more focused. I want to wait until Lion posts his summary before I get hardcore. But somethings that I see that I may want to deal with already are as follows:
--The Imago Dei and it's role in the Open View discussion (I can't WAIT to show you my thoughts on this...hehe)
--The term "misrepresentation" and it's chief presuppositions
--Anthropomorphism and its categories
--The "non-anthropomorphic" paradigm vs anthropomorphic paradigm (false?) dilemma
--Tillichian agnosticism and Kiergegaardian faith
--Logical ties and underpinnings of the openness hermeneutic
--The nigh-overwhelming problem of the "gap" factor and the full implications of epistemological humility
--Contradiction and relevancy: Why does this "anthropomorphism" discussion matter ANYWAY?
--Religious pragmatism and divine revelation
It may be a while before I can get this stuff out and it will probably be piecemeal, like Lion's (School's staring up now) While I prepare this stuff, I just want you to keep ONE quote in mind from Dr. Boyd. This is what Dr. Boyd says is the hub of the issue...
"The issue, I believe, centers on this: MUST LANGUAGE (think here of God being surprised and disappointed) MISREPRESENT GOD, OR NOT? Lion-Lamb and Mephi2k have repeatedly insisted that anthropomorphic language doesn’t misrepresent God. But, form my little vantage point, when they hold that God does not in himself "really" experience surprise, regret, or disappointment, then language that says he does experience surprise, regret or disappointment is misrepresenting God at least as much as it is representing God (and I, with Acts9-out, don’t clearly see how it truthfully represents God at all)." [Empasis mine]
Keep this quote in mind together with EVERYTHING that I've said thus far, ok? Sweet.
Stay tuned, true believers...
Holla At Cha,
Mephi2K
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/26/2001 6:44 PM (GMT -6) | | I thought I’d use this opportunity to weigh in now that Dr. Boyd has eloquently summarized the lot of us. LL I look forward to reading your summery as well. There are just a few points that I would like to make that I don’t think I’ve seen others make as of yet.
First in response to Mephi’s Thought Experiment we Open Theists could propose a Thought Experiment of our own. I want you to imagine a God who does regret, change His mind, repent, experience sequence, etc. How would this God reveal this to us?
Second in response to Mephi’s second question:
2) Is any human language (not just human SPEECH) God's "native" tongue or means of communication?
Wislawa:
I’ve been reading a lot about hermeneutics and art and how art is and uses language and I think that it is important to remember that among other things our God is indeed a very fine artist. Now it seems to me that we are responsible for the creation of many human languages and means of communication, but we didn’t create ourselves. Since artworks always rely on the medium of language I would suggest that you and I are an example of God’s ‘native’ tongue. This is partly just another take on the Imago Dei argument but it goes beyond it because flowers and trees and the rest of nature are also God’s ‘native’ tongue. We are living in the inside of a living language! We relate to it in a different way than to human languages. Our experience, I summit, takes place in a mixture of God’s ‘native’ tongue and many others. This of course begs the question of how to tell them apart but I won’t get into that just yet. In addition to this we should remember that Wittgenstein thought us that there is no such thing as an individual language. Granted the Trinity is communal but what kind of community does it form? From all accounts the Trinity is by nature an inclusive community rather than an exclusive one. I have argued elsewhere that it is the goal of the Church to enter into the Trinitarian cycle of love. Does this not suggest that some legitimate communication in the communal language of the Trinity?
The idea that God does not use the same descriptive language about Himself as we attribute to Him sounds a lot like the charge that the only people who should be geologists are rocks because rocks don’t use the same descriptive language about themselves as scientists attribute to them. In that case the only theologians should be God! Well how would you suggest this theologian (God) to communicate to us if we already know that He can’t be who he claims to be?
Third, I’ve got to agree with the good Doctor when he calls us on the meaning of words like genuine and integrity when applied to God. Well put-I wish I could organize my ideas as well as you, guess that’s why you’re the prof. As John Sanders reminds us if all language is anthropomorphic and none of it actually correlates to who God really is, than we might as well say nothing at all about God for anything we do say will be false. If the human meaning for words like genuine mean nothing of what they do for God than we might as well claim that God is disingenuous because both words are equally meaningless when applied to God. So someone who says that God is sinful, evil, ugly, stupid, and a bad dancer, is on the same level of accuracy as someone who says that God is holy, good, beautiful, wise, and can boogie with the best of ‘em (God is definitely not a Baptist because both statements are equally false. It seems that words, even in a human language, have to correlate so something of the same meaning for God or else we are in dead water.
In response to Shine
You said:
unless we were wired for truth, we could never DETECT illusions of any sort. the fact that we can distinguish between illusion and reality shows we are wired for reality. Descarte's demon still haunts you my good pal. and oh how i long to rescue thee.
Wislawa says:
Your not as radical as I thought you closet Kantian. I thought I could count on you to take a Heideggerian stand on these issues. Oh well, I do agree with you though.
You also said:
yo dude. pull the reigns in. first, aren't you just a bit diss'n our native American friend when you say "EVEN Wislawa, perhaps unknowingly..." like the guys brain injured or something. "LOL" as you say. Wislawa, if you're listening, Meph and I are insanely odd, okay?)
Wislawa speaks:
Yeah I felt like I could have been given a bit more credit. I wonder what else I’m unknowingly doing now. But seriously you went overboard in the post I was referring to. Now that you’ve qualified it all a bit things are better but I think I overlap with Mephi in places (although this is the first I’ve run across the term critical realism. I guess all of the contemporary folks I’ve been reading deal with epistemology from the outside). Oh and by the way, Wislawa is Polish although I’m not. And what does “LOL” mean? I’ve finally deciphered some of the other abbreviations that people have been using like WYSIWYG but I don’t know this one. I hope it’s not something easy and I get accused of being naive again.
Shine goes on to say:
NOT BY "CONTRASTING THEM" WITH OTHER WAYS OF KNOWING.
We find out a phenomenological experience was "inaccurate" by the "criteria of accuracy" appropriate to phenomenological experiences. dude, you don't check out whether or not you're seeing a mirage or real water by reverting to a different way of knowing (e.g. performing quantum physical experiments on the ground your observing). you check it out by doing OTHER phenomenological things... like walking closer. You then find out that the experience of the mirage that you inaccurately thought was water was actually an accurate experience of a mirage, not water.
Wislawa types:
O.K. good. I can buy that. The main thing that I wanted to see was a contrast with something, anything. But since we aren’t shying away from Kant anymore what’s so wrong with contrasting it with other ways of knowing? As for me the more dialog the better. The more contrast the better. This is the only way to get anything more than a myopic portrait of reality or God for that matter. We need epistemology as well to get a nice 4-D (3-D if you're not an open theist) picture of God in the speculative theology that Boyd talks about.
Wislawa
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/26/2001 6:45 PM (GMT -6) | | Hello Lion
Glad you and Meph thought my summary of your position was fair. "Meta-narrative" usually refers to a narrative about a narrative. It is a story that contextualizes a story. I think it is a convenient term to get at the Openness critique expressed several times throughout this dialogue that the "All God-talk is anthropomorphic" thesis presupposes a meta-story about God. The story is simply that God's transcendence means God is timeless, can't experience surprise, etc. The meta-story Open theists presuppose (yes, we have a meta-story too) is that God's transcendence doesn't entail that God is timeless (I'd rather say, "sequence-less") or that God's can't experience change, regret, etc...
The meta-physical question, then, is this: how are we to argue about meta-stories?
Hope this helps.
Blessings
Greg
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/26/2001 6:45 PM (GMT -6) | | Sweet stuff indeed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doc: I'm amazed that 1) you actually attempted to summarize this anthropomorphic mess, and 2) you actually seem to have succeeded--even to the general satisfaction of your greatest critics!!!!!! Next challenge: I dare anyone to successfully summarize Tom's Abraham thread to everyone's satisfaction. LOL
Wislawa, the more I hear from you, the more smiles I have for you. Wislawa says: I’ve been reading a lot about hermeneutics and art and how art is and uses language and I think that it is important to remember that among other things our God is indeed a very fine artist.
GDG responds: Speaking of the imago dei, Dorothy Sayers (Anglican, mystery writer, radio show producer, and theology dabbler who used to hang out with C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkein) points out that "when we turn back to see what [the author] says about the original upon which the 'image' of God was modeled, we find only a single assertion, 'God created.'" I like that.
Shine, your sista skates wit' ya in spirit.
Mephi, I have to get caught up to where you're at. I got distracted, but I'm looking forward to getting back in the game. I've been reading your hats post and I agree with it 89% (or something). It's that last 11% that makes it all so interesting.... p.s. have you read Frank Miller's "Ronin"? That was one of the first comic books I ever read.
LL, until we meet again.
Peace, GDG
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/26/2001 6:46 PM (GMT -6) | | relevancy of anthropomorphic language
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mephi, this musing is in response to your call for discussion of "Contradiction and relevancy: Why does this 'anthropomorphism' discussion matter ANYWAY?"
In Summa Contra Gentiles, Aquinas says, "Those things which are said of God and other things are predicated neither univocally nor equivocally, but analogically." As I've said before, I agree that language about God is analogical, but I still don't get what the big deal is. Just because a statement is analogical rather than propositional doesn't make it meaningless--I know you're not trying to say that it does...but what are you saying? That if we make claims about who God is based on his analogical self-revelations we are naïve? What makes the difference between my alleged naïveté (as an OT representative) and your critical realism (as a classical representative)?
More artistic-type people might argue that analogies are even more meaningful than propositions--they are certainly more interesting anyway. Flannery O'Connor said that you can tell that a story is good if you can't explain it without telling it all over again. When Schubert was asked to "explain" an étude he had just played, he responded by sitting down and playing it again. When Annie Dillard wrote Tinker Creek she said she was after "a picture, not an explanation."
I think that truths have an irreducible quality, and analogies are capable of expressing this in ways that confound creedal and ecclesiastical and academic attempts to capture it. Some find this daunting and so they try to deny it, but others find it irresistable (They generally irritate the daunted folks to no end. Such it life.) My favorite resurrection account is the Road to Emmaus. Check it out. Just when the followers thought they'd lost Jesus forever, he showed up! Just when they realized that Jesus had showed up, he diappeared! What's up with that? I don't know but it sure it sure makes things interesting.
Rather than shutting down claims about who God is, I think that the analogical nature of God's self-revelation invites all kinds of them. The irreducible nature of these truths insure that the fun will never end--or at least, anyone who claims to have put a stop to it is quite mistaken.
I grant that there may be some open theists who claim to know the Truth about who God is based on the analogical truths God has revealed about himself, but this is by no means due to anything inherent in open theism. I would suggest that this tendency is more representative of the people who are trying to exclude open theists from pastoring evangelical churches and from teaching at evangelical institutions on the basis of their allegedly less-than-glorious understanding of who God is. The lengths that they are willing to go to in order to shut down the open theist take on God are quite contrary to the implications of the analogical nature of God's self-revelation you are appealing to (not to mention downright creepy at times).
Of course there are limits to what constitute acceptable stabs at interpretation. I concur with Terence Fretheim (Lutheran Old Testament guy) on this: "In seeking to portray this God, however, we must be aware of the imaginitive character of the enterprise, check our efforts with what other readers have discerned, and remember that the tradition and community in which we stand will shape our construal of God in ways beyond our knowing" (from The Bible as God's Word). He goes on to discuss many other helpful criteria. Let me know if/when you're ready to go there with me. GDG
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/26/2001 6:46 PM (GMT -6) | | Mephi Wants To Be SURE He Gets It....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yo, I need some more info. This is my attempt at a restatement of the open view theism objections. Just so that I can make sure I have them down. I would like Doc and others to make sure that I have the ideas correct. Make sure, now. Read these over and fix anything you think is inaccurate. Because if these are accepted as is, I will be utilizing this as part of my framework.
Restatement of objections:
1)Imago Dei
"Human beings are made in God's image, according to Scripture. It may well be that this "imago dei" within all human beings is such that there is a relational connection on an ontological level that facilitates direct knowledge of God. When the statement "wired for truth" is employed, it means that humanity, via it's imago dei and constitution, is able to perceive, on SOME level, knowledge of God as He truly is in ultimate metaphysical reality. This ability interacts with Scripture such that whatever God claims about himself in Scripture can be believed to be perfectly representative in the ultimate metaphysical level."
2) Consistency
"It appears that non-anthropomorphic information--that is, information that cannot be said to be in human categories or in human form-- is being taken as a presupposition about God. Some of these presupposions would include that God cannot repent, regret, etc. The question is where does this presupposition come from. The opposition says that it comes from the revelation itself, the biblical text. However, it doesn't seem that anthropomorphic divine relevation impedes Lion and Mephi from using scripture that affirms the NON-humanity of God. We think the opposition is being inconsistent."
3) Tillichian agnosticism
"If no divine revelation can be said to correspond directly to God's ontology, this would logically entail that revelations that affirm his NON-humanity would fall into that category. Thus, nothing could ever be definitively said about God's ontology in ANY case. Thus the entrapment problem. It doesn't seem that anything meaningful can be said about God, IF we consider "meaning" to mean using language to convey complete correspondence to ultimate metaphysical reality."
4) Epistemological difference
"There may well be different epistemological foundations separating open view theism and more classical views. However, we make 2 points:
a) The difference in epistemology may be due to the difference of ontological consideration (i.e. the Imago Dei and its built in epistemological ramifications) such that there is a direct continuity between our human experience and God.
b) Naive realism, as Mephi calls it, may not such a bad thing.
5) The meta-narrative issue
"It seems to us that is is the axiomatic epistemological foundations that determine this discussion. The whole "anthropomorphic revelation" discussion only pushes the whole thing back a level. The metanarrative becomes the deciding factor. In order to truly solve the issue, the opposition must do two things:
a) Show how one can choose one "meta-narrative" over another as being more conducive for a particular worldview [in our case, the biblical Christian theism worldview]
b) Illustrate precisely how the current "meta-narrative" applied by open view theists is inadequate and how another "meta-narrative" remedies at least MORE of the inadequacies than the open view.
The Crowning Issue, according to Dr. Boyd:
"Must divine language from God to humanity necessitate a differential such that religious action of human beings is NOT based on the ACTUAL ontology of God, but is based merely on a theological schematic with which God provides us?"
Later,
Mephi2K
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/26/2001 6:47 PM (GMT -6) | | : Sweet stuff indeed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
¡§That stroke of genius that is Christianity¡¨ -FN
GDG-Amen to your relevancy post! Since all Christians, even open theists, believe that God is in some sense ¡§In control of history¡¨ it seems to me that one of His considerations when writing history has got to be aesthetic. Think about all of the foreshadowing in the Bible and all of the poetic license God takes just to throw a nice plot twist in here or there. One of the marks of a good work of art is that it has manifold layers of meaning. Just think about the atonement. Theologians will be unpacking new stuff about how cool this plot solution God dreamed up was forever. The best part about the debates on the atonement is that none of the positions are vying to oust the others, they only want to be emphasized over and above the others. This, of course, seems silly to me because I approach it as a stroke of genius. Nobody would argue this way about a Duchamp!ƒº
I¡¦ve got to admire God¡¦s direction style. He seems to have tons of subplots starting from all corners of the globe, and then intertwines them among each other and drops hints that connect them to each other. Then in one swoop He resolves them all with the same characters and at the same time. And it¡¦s not just limited to the Bible times either, I¡¦d feel short changed if it was. I can¡¦t wait to get to heaven and watch the DVD we can history on replay this time with the director¡¦s cut and added scenes. I know that I¡¦m missing out on a lot of puns that he has hidden in the framework of creation.
GOD: ¡§Oh that whole E=MC squared business, yeah I put that one in just for kicksƒº! I was hoping you folks would find that one. To bad you missed the rest of ¡¥em they were dozzies.¡¨
Have you ever seen any Krzysztof Kieslowski movies (Three Colors Trilogy, The Decalogue)? Kieslowski learned how to craft a plot from God (or maybe it was the other way around? Who knows right). Or have you read Derrida¡¦s treatment of the Christian narrative in ¡§The Gift of Death.¡¨ I know he¡¦s a bit weird at times but the true beauty of the Christian drama shines thru that work. He let me read it again with fresh eyes and he raises the stakes to awe-full heights that puts the fear and trembling back in the mix.
Wislawa
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/26/2001 6:48 PM (GMT -6) | | RE: That was awesome
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
wow,
Thanks Dr. Boyd that was marvelous. I think I've changed my mind about being your groupie, where can I sign up?
Ghost,
you continue to amaze me. Thank you so much.
Wislawa,
Great post. another artist! yeah!!!
Mephi,
You go guy
LL
can't wait to read what you've got
be blessed ya'll
springs
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/26/2001 6:49 PM (GMT -6) | | RE: disillusioned dialectics... take 2?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi all, I have finally gotten up the nerve to reenter the dialogue. Time is particularly precious lately. I may interject something at times but I cannot monitor the discussion daily so please be patient. This summary by Boyd seems a particularly appropriate place to start…
Here goes my two cents worth in response to Boyd's summary:
It seems there has been a recognition that we must "take very seriously the inherent limitations of all God-talk." Agreed. But this does not go nearly far enough. If it has been agreed that it is our "limited range of experience which alone grounds all meaningful discourse" then we must also admit an equal limitation to all ways of knowing which are ultimately dependent upon experience. So then not only God-talk but any kind of talk which claims transcontextual truth status must be posited with humility that it is at least not complete in its presentation. Therefore, the character of the dialogue should reflect such humility based upon the recognition that what we say may very well be wrong.
Regarding this epistemological issue I offer two convictions which make plausible the continuance of meaningful dialogue: a. at the ontological level, truth must be singular (and that is about ALL I say with confidence ontologically, though much could be said COSMO-logically) b. we do not and cannot have direct access to the truth if the truth is infinite and we are finite. The reason is that all knowledge possessed by humans is communicated to us in some way and all communication is always indirect.
So what? So all knowledge and thereby all talk, not just God-talk, is anthropomorphic. The result is that we as creatures seeking wisdom are obligated to seek the truth with the recognition that we do so under the conditions of finitude and thereby cannot attain it while we remain under these conditions. This however, does not leave us with nothing to say! (Though perhaps nothing to prove, formally.)
On the contrary, we have our most meaningful and transformative moments when God encounters us personally in a way which is more real to us than any thought we could ever think. This sort of encounter serves as an interruption from our usual dizziness as a moment of clarity. That moment of clarity makes a believer what they are, a lover of God, not merely a thinker. Theology has as a critical part of its "data" the meaning which must be appropriated on the basis of such an encounter with God. Thus the wise phrase of Anselm, "faith seeking understanding". As constituent of the human experience, we all encounter God, the result will be either faith or offense, but one will finally be required to have an opinion (credit to Kierkegaard for this insight). As Jesus said, "Blessed is the one who is not offended by me.
"The "Chinese" metaphor works, but only weakly. To reverse the usage on this site (perhaps to entertain the theomporphic notion?)…for an American who has learned Chinese but never been there, to be transplanted into China involves not only an interruption to her usual patterns but a whole wealth of experiential data, much of which (sights, smells, sounds, foods she has never seen, felt or tasted before) she will not even be able to take in because her mind won't know how to organize the experience. To understate it, there would be a surplus of meaningful experience only some of which would get her conscious intellectual attention and even less will receive any attempt at verbalization. And then to meet a Chinese man! What of these customs, clothes, mannerisms…how much of it can she take in, much less understand, much less verbalize to an American back home via telephone. As we have often heard said, "I guess you had to be there." And then to transpose the analogy onto the discussion of the encounter of the divine and human? If we can image the problems of the analogy across culture what of those across an infinite distance? Humility indeed, is warranted in speculative conversations about God. We may have intimate experiences with God personally which are powerful and engaging, much like a fine piece of art can be, though to a much greater degree (so "yes" to Greg about God's wonderful ability to communicate effectively to us), but like art, notoriously evasive of our categorizations (and "yes" to others about the radical limitations of the human mind's ability to grasp and reflect the eternal).
As for Greg's 5 critical responses:
1. We can speculate about how God experiences reality and Scripture does give warrant to claims about God's involvement in history, but the epistemological ambiguities do not go away as long as our talks about God's experiences are had under the conditions of sin and finitude. Again, the talk can be meaningful in terms of sharing ideas, but not finally "literal" as though communication were not itself indirect. No more than this can reasonably be claimed, even if God is the omni-communicator unless God does the communication between us as we discuss theology. Even under optimum conditions, you and I can communicate only so well, theological content does not override this limitation interpersonally.
2. I did not go back and read the discussion, but from what I have heard from Mephi, Lion-Lamb and others, certain texts are taken to be "less" anthropomorphic so as to ground certain convictions, ie. God does not change God's mind. It may be fair to say that the certainty with which they hold to this conviction seems indefensible if all God-talk is anthropomorphic and even less defensible if ALL talk is anthropomorphic. Though, if we are honest, I think we all would admit to protecting certain sacred beliefs under even the stiffest scrutiny. Classical Theists will defend the glory of God to the death and likewise, Open Theists will defend the loving character of God at all costs. Qualitatively greater, I hope that we all will defend our relationships with God based in the end upon God's breaking into our lives in ways that go beyond our words, and so our defence goes deeper than words. Do we dare confess this to one another?
3. Ouch! On Tillich's behalf… Tillich did not draw an "agnostic" conclusion, he simply recognized the necessary ambiguity (note the frequency of his use of the word "ambiguity" in the third volume of his Systematic Theology) of our ability to speak about God from our finite perspective. He was confessionally Lutheran and a self-proclaimed mystic. By this he meant that he admitted a sort of a priori belief in God but refused to let that word (hence the designation, "the God beyond God") be defined by the traditional theological categories because of their lack of sensitivity to the humility required of one who speaks of the infinite. Tillich's conclusion that we can only say that God is "the ground of being" is consistent with his twin commitments: to recognize the ambiguity of making claims about God from our perspective coupled with his mystical a priori.
4. If it is true for Open Theists that "there is a built in continuity between the human experience and God" this only means that it is conceivable that both can coexist. One could hope that at least this much and more is true if God intended to participate in creation to the degree that it appears in Scripture that God has so participated. What this continuity means is quite different for the two different categories: existential encounter between God and individuals can occur with profound clarity and overwhelming effect, while our inherent limitedness still prevents us from speaking clearly about such an experience of God much less God's actual being.
It seems that what needs to happen is for someone to decide whether they recognize the limits of finitude (and get as clear as possible about what those are) or not on our language about God and then stick with that commitment. It may be that within the church in particular parts of world (midwestern evangelical baptists of the more Arminian sort with some charismatic influence from revivalism, for instance) Christians may be able to speak to one another with greater continuity regarding their relationships with God, but to move into discussion about God proper without assuming that the ambiguity increases exponentially would expose to me a naïve realism. There may be a great sense of agreement but it would be largely creditable to the abstract character of the discussion and would become correspondingly as irrelevant as it is speculative.
The basic ontologies break down most critically in terms of whether they admit sequence as constitutive of reality or not. The epistemologies vary correspondingly, if sequence is "really real" (as Boyd says), then of course God experiences things sequentially, if not than of course God does not experience things sequentially. The point above about continuity seems dependent upon the above: if God experiences sequence as we do (because it is ontologically required of all existent being) then the continuity is greater…To make either claim, for or against ontological sequence, is somewhat arbitrary because the evidence admits some ambiguity as demonstrated by the plurality of opinions present. This sounds suspiciously similar to somewhere Greg and Mephi have been before…
4. (again?) It seems true to me that Greg's accusation is fair regarding the failure of some to apply the ambiguity of "anthropomorphic" language to some particular passages which involve God-talk. While people are entitled to their opinions, they ought to admit that the case cannot be formally demonstrated by logic (assuming that logic has been chosen as the defining criterion of truth in this case?), one way or the other.
Who will propose the criteria which we can all agree upon to be adequate for the sorting through interpretations of Scripture passages about God's inner being? Is it conceivable that we all might agree upon any such criteria? We would first have had to agree entirely upon what sort of authority Scripture is to have for our discussion. Clearly we have not done that. I honestly cannot imagine either of those happening, let alone both.
5. Bingo. Boyd's "b) what one a priori deems to be 'worthy of God'" is finally the decisive point.
Dr. Boyd, in his conclusion makes one last plea for his convictions after affirming the value of engaging in speculative theology and attempting to construct a meta-narrative. All will agree with Boyd that different parties come to different conclusions regarding both. The question is whether we have an "objective" speculative theology or meta-narrative by which to test our own. Of course, unless you are devoutly catholic (and then the continuity lies in the authority and continuity of tradition, itself not unambiguous, rather than a meta-narrative per say. And which theologian to pick?), the answer is "no."
On theology generally:
It has sometimes been thought that God encounters a person right where they are draws that person unto Godself. Why think that how we experience that drawing to God, based upon where God has called us from, should all sound, look, and feel exactly the same? Don't we do theology for two primary reasons?
a. to benefit proclamation of the Gospel in our contemporary context for the sake of the Great Commission.
b. as an expression of our faith (remember faith SEEKING understanding?) in living communion with God and the saints of God locally.
Theology in this second sense is not done FOR someone else, but first as an expression of your own walk with God, and like your testimony, it can be a tool which God uses (one which requires constant sharpening)…but if history is any indication, it will not be the last theological treatise ever done on a particular topic, nor should it be…God is too rich, and God's work too full of meaning to ever be fully captured in our words, (with Greg) we can say true things, but it will never be the last or best expression, only God does best expressions in that sense…
Our belief in the Unity of Truth has not yet justified itself by calling all great minds to agreement. Faith is still required of us even at that basic epistemic level. This is reason enough for our conversations to be characterized by genuine humility.
For all of these reasons it is absolutely critical that there be a clear distinction between first and second order discourse. First order being the confession of our faith as Paul laid out in 1st Cor. 15:1-11 or so and second order being our abstracted and systematizing efforts regarding various issues of faith that are not the Gospel proper. Paul could confess to know nothing among the Corinthians but "Christ and him crucified."
For the record, almost everything ever said in this message board is second order discourse and it should be treated as such. There is no flexibility with first order discourse, it is The Message, spoken by God through us. Christ is the message and the messenger, we are repititions of that message and sometimes create occasions for an encounter between God and a person. All else is relatively unimportant in comparison. Think how much fun theology could be if we made a distinction of this nature? Not that anything goes, but that there is actually room for reflection that is less guarded than how first order is treated. Evangelicals in general fail to make this important distinction, which is why we so quickly condemn and exclude each other. We confuse secondary theological discourse with the gospel itself and assign the wrong weight to lesser issues.
One might ask, how does first order discourse escape the epistemological ambiguities noted above?? Because God encounters you personally in first order discourse. Your most intimate subjectivity your own self consciousness, becomes the meeting place for the most objective meaning one can encounter, God confronts you personally. Can you believe that? Of all the audacity, after all the philosophy, all the theology, all the biblical studies, God shows up and confronts you personally in such a way that you will be required to have an opinion. One that will have eternal consequences.
This has obviously been far too long. I welcome your comments but I cannot promise speedy replies to them. Blessings to you all. If you read through all of this, you are far more patient than I…
Modes
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/26/2001 6:49 PM (GMT -6) | | Return of the Modes: The Second Coming of A Great One
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modes,
Dangit, man. Using Kierkegegaard before I got a chance to do it! LOL
Nah, for real. Your post was tight. I figure we have a lot in common, man. How?
1) We both emphasize the necessity for epistemological humility
2) We both understand truth as being unitary
3) We both keep in mind the critical ties between faith and reason
4) We obviously both end up writing tomes of material (hehe..)
and most importantly,
5) We both agree about keeping the main things the main things (Christ and the Gospel)
Sheesh. With all these significant similarities, it's hard to understand why we bump heads so hard on the feasibility of the open view. LOL I hear what you are saying but I still think that there are some things important here yet to be fully considered...
1)The selection of "meta-narrative": It is being said that there is no truly objective means by which to choose between meta-narratives. I don't necessarily agree, for a number of reasons that basically have to deal with paradigmatic shifts. I'll do more on this later...
2)Faith commitment: Just as we give faith to the claims of the Gospel, there are other concepts within Christian claims in which we put our faith. I believe that it is this that crosses the divide of ambiguity. Maybe later, I can flesh it out a little more..
3) Religious pragmatism: This ties in with #2 above. Human activity based upon commitment to self-perceived divine revelation and what that entails.
I really jive with what you wrote...a lot. I agree with what you were saying and first and second order discourses. I just think that in some cases second order discourse material can have the power, if left unchecked, to turn around and obscure, if not contradict, the first order material. Not to say that open view theism necessarily fits that bill, but whatever... Anyways, reading your stuff reminds me of just how much I missed our discussions. I'm tired so maybe I'll interact more with this later. Glad to have ya back, homie.
Still the Bootlickin' "Fool" ,
Mephi2K
PS: Say, there. Are you a philosophy or theological studies student? I just wanted to know...
PSS: We'll get down on our thing as your time allows....
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/26/2001 6:50 PM (GMT -6) | | RE: RE: disillusioned dialectics... take 2?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modes,
I yield to Mephi to offer a whole response to your lengthy note disillusioned dialectics... take 2?. I simply offer two modifications to your note. I will quote the relevant portion of your words and then comment upon them.
It seems there has been a recognition that we must "take very seriously the inherent limitations of all God-talk." Agreed. But this does not go nearly far enough. If it has been agreed that it is our "limited range of experience which alone grounds all meaningful discourse" then we must also admit an equal limitation to all ways of knowing which are ultimately dependent upon experience. So then not only God-talk but any kind of talk which claims transcontextual truth status must be posited with humility that it is at least not complete in its presentation. Therefore, the character of the dialogue should reflect such humility based upon the recognition that what we say may very well be wrong.
It seems to me that your reasoning concerning humility skipped a crucial element and that your final sentence does not necessarily or properly follow from the reasoning of the earlier statements of this paragraph. You moved too quickly from the idea of not complete in its presentation to may very well be wrong. In particular, it seems to me that if we are to talk properly about humility concerning our conversations about God, we should modify your final statement. Here is how I would propose that your reasoning needs to be modified.
Therefore, the character of the dialogue should reflect such humility based upon the recognition that what we say may very well be either incomplete because the information we have is not exhaustive, or insufficient, though truthful, based upon the revelation God has given us. If our statements are truthful, given the partial information we have, we may speak with confident humility, affirming that we have necessary but insufficient information. Because we lack further information, no human can judge such truthful statements wrong. On the other hand, if our statements are true but in need of correction by including more complete information that is accessible, to that degree our statements are properly judged wrong, even if truthful as far as they go. However, even here, the wrongness of insufficient statements varies.
The reason I offer this caveat is threefold: (1) Humility is not contrary to confidence. (2). In conversations such as we are engaging too many people, when told they are wrong on a particular statement or argument, assume they are wholly wrong in everything they have argued. (3) It is one thing to be in a dialogue such as this and make statements that are truthful but insufficient, yet desirous to be corrected. It is quite another matter to represent affirmations that are partial as if they are sufficient and whole, and then reject correction from others who call upon us to ponder carefully the fullness of the information necessary to be integrated into a proper whole.
There is one other paragraph I want to comment upon briefly, and then I leave the remainder for Mephi. You stated,
I did not go back and read the discussion, but from what I have heard from Mephi, Lion-Lamb and others, certain texts are taken to be "less" anthropomorphic so as to ground certain convictions, ie. God does not change God's mind. It may be fair to say that the certainty with which they hold to this conviction seems indefensible if all God-talk is anthropomorphic and even less defensible if ALL talk is anthropomorphic.
I speak for myself alone. Your summary does not do justice to my belief when you say, certain texts are taken to be "less" anthropomorphic so as to ground certain convictions, ie. God does not change God's mind. That is a notion that has been imputed to me, but I do not accept it as accurate or correct. I do not speak of “more” and “less” anthropomorphic, though others do, and I think unwisely.
Still composing my summary statement,
Lion-Lamb
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/26/2001 6:50 PM (GMT -6) | | Yeehaw! Now we're talkin'!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modes,
~ I think you did a great job of addressing some of the epistemological concerns that Mephi has been raising.
~ I think that the distinction you made between first and second order discourse is key.
~ Also, great stuff on the surplus of meaning re: our encounter with God. I like your existential emphasis.
~ I was able to follow what you said, but I don't feel qualified to comment on it. Just wanted to say that I will be listening in on your conversation with Mephi. Can't wait.
One question:
~ You said something about (I can't find it in your note right now, I hope I get it right...) agreeing upon criteria for discerning meaning (humbly, of course) from the biblical text, but you said that in order to do this we also have to agree on the authority/inspiration of the text. Dang. Yeah, that seems nigh impossible. Why are both necessary, and if it's so impossible, then how to we further the discussion, or don't we?
GDG
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/26/2001 6:50 PM (GMT -6) | | RE: RE: RE: disillusioned dialectics... take 2?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lion-Lamb objects to Modes' following statement: "Therefore, the character of the dialogue should reflect such humility based upon the recognition that what we say may very well be wrong."
Why does this not surprise me? Just teasin' ya. GDG
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/26/2001 6:51 PM (GMT -6) | | RE: Installment #1 Necessary Summary Thoughts on Revelation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now to him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery concealed for long ages, but is now disclosed through the prophetic Scriptures, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known for the obedience of faith unto all the Gentiles– to the only wise God through Jesus Christ, to him be glory forever. Amen (Romans 16:25-27).
The very Scriptures (Old Testament) that concealed God’s mystery are the same Scriptures that now disclose that mystery. Inherent to the idea of revelation, is the idea of concealment. This is true because revelation entails disclosure of what was concealed until made known. This concealment and revelation motif is integral to Scripture. Consider Proverbs 25:2–“It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings.” What is the point of the proverb? As is common with biblical proverbs, the earthly king, the loftiest among humans with the greatest resources, is set in contrast to God. The implicit argument of the proverb is this: Given the elevated place a king has over all other humans, the king on earth stands in utter contrast to the King of Heaven. What is the point of the proverb, then? The glory of the earthly king and the glory of God stand sharply distinguished. God’s glory is to conceal; the king’s glory is to search out for discovery. What glory would God have if all that he is and all that he does were entirely open and accessible to his creatures? As the Lord reveals himself he veils himself from his creatures. Repeatedly the Old Testament expresses this reality as God hides in the cloud or in darkness as Solomon explains:
“When the priests withdrew from the Holy Place, the cloud filled the temple of the LORD. And the priests could not perform their service because of the cloud, for the glory of the LORD filled his temple. Then Solomon said, “The LORD has said that he would dwell in a dark cloud; I have indeed built a magnificent temple for you, a place for you to dwell forever” (1 Kings 8:10-13).
So, we read of God hiding himself at the same time he reveals himself.
Then the cloud covered the Tent of Meeting, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle. Moses could not enter the Tent of Meeting because the cloud had settled upon it, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle. In all the travels of the Israelites, whenever the cloud lifted from above the tabernacle, they would set out; but if the cloud did not lift, they did not set out—until the day it lifted. So the cloud of the LORD was over the tabernacle by day, and fire was in the cloud by night, in the sight of all the house of Israel during all their travels. (Exodus 40:34-38).
“The LORD spoke to Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron who died when they approached the LORD. The LORD said to Moses: “Tell your brother Aaron not to come whenever he chooses into the Most Holy Place behind the curtain in front of the atonement cover on the ark, or else he will die, because I appear in the cloud over the atonement cover. This is how Aaron is to enter the sanctuary area. . . . Aaron shall bring the bull for his own sin offering to make atonement for himself and his household, and he is to slaughter the bull for his own sin offering. He is to take a censer full of burning coals from the altar before the LORD and two handfuls of finely ground fragrant incense and take them behind the curtain. He is to put the incense on the fire before the LORD, and the smoke of the incense will conceal the atonement cover above the Testimony, so that he will not die” (Leviticus 16:1-2, 13).
He made darkness his covering, his canopy around him—the dark rain clouds of the sky” (Psalm 18:11).
“Clouds and thick darkness surround him; righteousness and justice are the foundation of his throne” (Psalm 97:2).
A crucial passage is the one that portrays the Lord’s revelation to Moses on the mountain.
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.”
Then the LORD said, “There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen.”
His glory is too awesome to behold except, as it were, from the back side. The Lord reveals partially and selectively as Moses tells us, “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law” (Deuteronomy 29:29). And when the Lord of Heaven discloses himself he has not diminished his glory at all, for his glory is utterly inexhaustible as he is.
Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
How unsearchable his judgments,
and his paths beyond tracing out!
“Who has known the mind of the Lord?
Or who has been his counselor?”
“Who has ever given to God,
that God should repay him?”
For from him and through him and to him are all things.
To him be the glory forever! Amen.
The Lord hides himself in light as in the darkness or the cloud.
Bless the Lord, O my soul.
O Lord my God, you are very great.
You are clothed with honor and majesty,
wrapped in light as with a garment. (Psalm 104:2).
Because God shows himself in all his creation and handiwork it is easy for sinful humans to worship that which is seen instead of the unseen one. It is easy to substitute the created thing for the Creator and to mistake the earthly symbol for the heavenly or divine reality. So, sinful humans exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator (Romans 1:25). Is God at fault for hiding himself in the cloud or in the storm (Job 38:1; 40:6; Nahum 1:3)? Is God to be blamed for human failure to acknowledge God who is invisible? Surely not! For as truly as God conceals himself he also in his act of concealing also reveals himself in all his creation and especially in humans, all made after his likeness.
Lion-Lamb
P.S. For anyone who wonders, I am not Platonic nor do I follow Aquinas. I genuinely have come to my beliefs by way of reading Scripture. To whatever degree Plato or Aquinas agree with me, it is because God has shown himself in his creation, for Plato, too, was made in God’s image.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/26/2001 6:52 PM (GMT -6) | | RE: Installment #2 Necessary Summary Thoughts on Image of God
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As humans we must think analogically about God. Why is this? Analogy is intrinsic to God’s creation, for God has left his fingerprints on everything he has made (Rom 1:20ff; note the anthropomorphic metaphor I used), so that he shows himself by his effects. God makes himself known by way of his handiwork and his speech; he does not show himself directly. God shows us reflections of himself, not face to face. Analogy is inherent in us by God’s design as creatures he made in his own image and likeness. All our thoughts about God are properly birthed with a self-referential awareness that conceives of God analogically. Properly conceived, our thoughts about God openly confess that the analogical relationship between God and us does not begin with us and move to God, but begins with God and moves to us. For he is not like we are; we are like God is. Therefore, right thinking about God begins with candid acknowledgment that we are God’s reflection. As the image in a pond depends entirely upon the young girl who casts the image, so we depend completely upon God who casts the image we are. Likewise, as the glory of the image in the pond is but a shadow of the young girl’s glory, so whatever glory is lodged in us, the image, is far exceeded by the glory of God who cast the image.
Thus, right thinking about God necessarily acknowledges that the analogical relationship between Creator and creature entails not only similarities but differences. For, the very fact that the analogy runs from Creator to creature obligates us to acknowledge with candor this. God’s own self-revelation accents both resemblance and unlikeness. Of course, we must keep in mind that because God’s self-revelation exploits the analogy of Original and image, expression of all dissimilarities between God and his likeness has anthropos as its foil as much as all similarities between Creator and creature has anthropos as its reflection. (By foil I mean one that by contrast underscores or enhances the distinctive characteristics of another.) Therefore, whether God discloses himself as if he were anthropos or as unlike anthropos, his authentic self-disclosure is an anthropomorphic portrayal. So, whether God creates Adam from the dust of the earth (Gen 2:7) or walks in the Garden in the cool portion of the day (Gen 3:8) or asks where Adam is (Gen 3:9-11), he reveals himself to us by portraying himself as if he were a human. Similarities and differences are obvious; identicalness is clearly ruled out. The one who created the earth portrays himself as forming Adam from the adamah, namely the earth. The one who lives without dependence upon another breathes life into Adam whose whole life hangs entirely upon his Creator’s sustaining of that life. The one who cast the image reveals himself to Adam as he anthropomorphizes and walks in the Garden as if he were a human. God reveals himself to the man and woman in the form and likeness he gave them. The one who announced beforehand what would come to pass if Adam would eat the forbidden fruit shows himself to Adam as if he were a human and employs human conventions of communication. He asks questions, as if he were a human. God asks questions, which if taken at face value would seem to suggest God did not know Adam’s whereabouts or that Adam had eaten the forbidden fruit or how he now knew his own nakedness. Of course, if we reflect upon human communication conventions, we come to realize that humans use the same kinds of questions when they already know the answers.
Does the biblical text portray God as he truly is? Does the narrative mean that God has a body, after all, with feet and a mouth, and that he looks like Adam? Does God have eyes? Is God’s vision limited? Was God ignorant concerning where Adam was and that he was hiding? Was God ignorant of how the man and the woman discovered that they were naked? Also, was God lacking knowledge that they had eaten fruit from the forbidden tree? Is there such a thing as a proper dignum Deo, that is a sense of what God is like? Of course, for aren’t we made in God’s image and likeness? Doesn’t the Apostle Paul’s argument in Romans 1:18-32 build upon the inherent sense of God’s nature? Are we cast upon this inherent sense of what God is like to sort out the distinctions between God and Adam in Genesis 1-3? No, but we must not divorce our understanding of the passage from the fact that we are made in God’s image. So, the imago Dei which bears within it a dignum Deo surely provides some sense that these disclosures of God must be understood as God’s taking on human qualities to pass through the veil that hides the Creator from us humans in order to reveal himself to us. We are not left to ourselves, however, to sort these matters out, for there are indicators in the narrative that assist us in answering the questions I raised above.
If we claim the narrative of Genesis 3:8-11 portrays God as he actually is, we must also claim that God does not fully know either the present or the past based upon the questions the Lord asks. For, the Lord’s questions–“Where are you? “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?”–are as much God’s self-revelation in human likeness as his walking and speaking are self-disclosures in human form. Such questions are not seeking information, as if God does not know. Rather, precisely because God knows, he interrogates the man and woman to draw acknowledgment from them that they lusted for wisdom and “the good” contrary to the Lord’s provision and command. The Lord’s questions are the kinds of questions humans ask, not because they don’t know the answers to their questions, but precisely because they do know. Such are the questions a mother asks her young son who comes to the dinner table with gooey chocolate smeared around his mouth. “What have you been up to? Have you been eating cookies before dinner? Have you disobeyed me?” The mother asks, not because she is clueless about his son’s activities but because she knows. The questions aren’t designed to seek information but to convict the son with his own words that he has violated trust.
The imago Dei functions as a crucial link that gives humans access to knowledge of God whether that knowledge comes by way of creation or spoken/written word. Adam and his descendants were created as analogues of God. Thus we properly conceive of our thinking, our willing, and our doing at every point as analogical to God’s thinking, willing, and doing. So, as humans we must think analogically about God.
Lion-Lamb
P.S. I may not have access to the web for a few days, so bear with me if I fail to respond to anyone. Thanks.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/26/2001 6:52 PM (GMT -6) | | RE: RE: Installment #2 Necessary Summary Thoughts on Image of God
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lion-Lamb,
Thank you for the clearly written -- indeed, eloquent -- two postings on "Thoughts on Image of God." They were excellent and persuasive.
This material is insightful, but I don't see that it affects the Openness debate -- if that is still our ultimate focus. For example, regarding the "transcendence" issue... I agreed with absolutely EVERYTHING you said. Where Openness and Classical-type thinkers differ is that we have fundamentally different intuitions about this transcendence. Indeed, we regard each others fundamental intuitions about what constitutes "transcendence" to be unworthy of God.
Because of this, we both agree that the key to what God's transcendence is like must be taken from revelation itself, but we use different sets of passages as the theological basis for this assessment. Openness thinkers say God's transcendence must be LIKE the openness passages: Classical-type thinkers say God's transcendence must be UNLIKE the Openness passages because it is rather LIKE the predestination/control passages. Openess thinkers argue Classical-types have misinterpreted the predestination/control passages. Classical-types argue Openness thinkers have misapplied the openness passages.
All of this is to argue that the real issue here is not philosophy of language, but a)exegesis and b) fundamental intuitions about what is "worthy of God."
Greg
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/26/2001 6:52 PM (GMT -6) | | RE: RE: RE: Installment #2 Necessary Summary Thoughts on Image of God
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bingo!!
thank you, well put.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/26/2001 6:55 PM (GMT -6) | | RE: RE: RE: Installment #2 Necessary Summary Thoughts on Image of God
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Boyd,
For the sake of clarity, I will copy your response to Lion-Lamb’s Installments #1 and #2 Necessary Summary Thoughts on Image of God.
“Because of this, we both agree that the key to what God's transcendence is like must be taken from revelation itself, but we use different sets of passages as the theological basis for this assessment. Openness thinkers say God's transcendence must be LIKE the openness passages: Classical-type thinkers say God's transcendence must be UNLIKE the Openness passages because it is rather LIKE the predestination/control passages. Openess thinkers argue Classical-types have misinterpreted the predestination/control passages. Classical-types argue Openness thinkers have misapplied the openness passages.”
1. Are you saying that God has revealed his transcendence in two distinct ways in Scripture through “openness passages” and “predestination/control passages”?
2. If so, are you saying they are conflicting, non-reconcilable revelations by God about his transcendence?
3. And if either is true, how do we know to which of the two “sets of passages” we should gravitate in order to understand and worship God in his transcendence?
I need your explanation to understand what you have written.
Pilgrim
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/26/2001 6:55 PM (GMT -6) | | RE: RE: RE: RE: Installment #2 Necessary Summary Thoughts on Image of God
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My guess is that Dr. Boyd might say that the "Openness" perspective is that there are two distinct ways that God can know the future, as possible and as actual. The two types of passages you drew out by quotation correspond to those two ways. "Openness" passages reflect possibility, "classical-type" passages reflect actuality. The Open view claims advantage by recognized both types of passages, so no, there is no conflict. The two distinct "motifs" as Dr. Boyd says, are only reconcilable from the Classical perspective which must harmonize the openness passages often at the expense of the tacit meaning of the text in question.
God's transcendence is clearly revealed in both sets of texts, the question is whether one can hear the Openness texts as revealing God's transcendence without doing them violence exegetically becuase of prior cosmological commitments.
Sorry if my responding here is presumptuous, as you did address your question to Boyd specifically.
Modes
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/26/2001 6:56 PM (GMT -6) | | RE: RE: RE: Installment #2 Necessary Summary Thoughts on Image of God
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg & Modes,
I guess I am puzzled to the point of silence. You responded to my Installment #2, so I have to conclude that you were agreeing with my statements in that Installment. If that is accurate, then I don't know anything more to say. I cannot understand how you could agree with much of what I said, especially in Installment #2. Do you not recognize that what I have said is not the same thing classical Christian theists, such as Bruce Ware, are saying? What I have articulated is not what Bruce Ware is saying.
Since I'm puzzled into silence, I really have no idea what to say, if there is anything further to say. But I do not agree with you in your final statement. You said,
All of this is to argue that the real issue here is not philosophy of language, but a)exegesis and b) fundamental intuitions about what is "worthy of God."
One of the very points of my two installments was to make it clear that there is a serious divide concerning philosophy of language as manifested by the radically different ways open theists and I read the Bible. A proper philosophy of language arises from the biblical text. That's a central and crucial point I have been arguing in all my notes on the subject of anthropomorphisms. You can't simply dismiss it as not being the issue. Simply telling me that the real issue here is not philosophy of language hardly makes it so. You haven't demonstrated how your assertion is truthful. Philosphy of language, born out of biblical exegesis, is an absolutely crucial issue.
I suppose you probably guessed by now what I will say next. Not wanting to disappoint you, I will say you have not understood my argument again. But I'm going to take the blame for it this time. It probably was due to my lack of clarity. I haven't the time, however, to compose any futher notes to make it clearer. So, I'm bowing out in silence.
No roar, no growl, no purr,
Lion-Lamb
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/26/2001 6:56 PM (GMT -6) | | RE: RE: RE: RE: Installment #2 Necessary Summary Thoughts on Image of God
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boyd here, responding to Pilgrims three questions:
Pilgrim Q1. Are you saying that God has revealed his transcendence in two distinct ways in Scripture through “openness passages” and “predestination/control passages”?
It's not that so much that there are distinct passages that reveal God's transcendence. Rather,as Lion-Lamb and Mephi2K have effectively argued, God's transcendence is the presupposition to all biblical revelation. I do find "two motifs" in Scripture relative to God's interaction with the world, as I argued in God of the Possible. My difference with Lion-Lamb and Mephi2k, and perhaps you, and certainly all classical theists, is that 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.
Pilgrim Q2. If so, are you saying they are conflicting, non-reconcilable revelations by God about his transcendence?
This would only be the case if we took either one of the two motifs as the exhaustive description of God. I fault the classical tradition on just this account. NOW we have an irreconcilable contradiction. Now there is a logical constraint to conclude that the openness passages (e.g. God experiences regret, change of plans, disappointment, "if" "maybe" "perhaps" talk, "searching hearts" etc.) DON'T speak about God as he is -- at least not in the same way that the "other" motif (control) does. If we rather conclude from the two motifs that the future is controlled to whatever extent God decides, and open to whatever extent God decides, that its neither exhaustively open or exhaustively contolled, we satisfy all the biblical data with no contradiction. And then, as frosting on the cake, we find our selves with a view of the future that is in accord with our experience and with the direction science is moving. We also find (I argue) that a number of theological conundrums have been aided (e.g. the problem of evil).
3. And if either is true, how do we know to which of the two “sets of passages” we should gravitate in order to understand and worship God in his transcendence?
We only have this problem if we interpret either motif as exhaustive. If we allow the two motifs to fill each other out, we can affirm BOTH as true and indicative of God's transcendence.
It all boils down to this plea: level the playing field of scripture. Let both motifs talk, with an equal voice.
Later Pilgrim
Greg Boyd
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/26/2001 6:56 PM (GMT -6) | | Here We Go...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Room,
I'd like to note something. It seems that something like this keeps getting stated...
"...fundamental intuitions about what is "worthy of God."
Mephi:
Something needs to be noted.
1) Lion and I are not classical theists qua classical theism
2) Lion and I do not force an idea of what a "worthy" God is. We look at Scripture and try to see what those documents say that God reveals about himself.
3) Lion and I do #2 with the concern of recognizing the anthropomorphic nature of divine revelation.
I want to clear something up. I think I can speak for Lion on this, but I will surely speak for myself. I are neither Bruce Ware nor am I John Piper. I am not trying to enforce a metanarrative of what a "worthy God" would be. I want this to be noted well! Why? Because I see as clear as day that people try to place Lion and myself in that camp. How can I say that? Easily. The bottom line is this: If I believed that the open view of God were truly defensible rationally via the Scriptures, I would be an open view theist. I have NO problem with the open view of God IF that is what the Scriptures attested to. I repeat, if I could see open view theism as rationally justifiable via infomation in the Scriptures, I would have no choice but to accept it, because I accept Scriptural authority. However, I do notice that some open view theists DO have an a priori view of a "worthy" God that I keep continually hearing about: the God who doesn't micromanage or plan robots. The God who is inextricably linked to libertarian free will is the one vaunted to be "worthy". I REALLY want you to think about it. Go back to the "Study Break Question" thread and look at ALL of the posts...and see if you can see what I'm saying. See, the way I see it, that's why the metanarrative keeps getting brought up. Doc Boyd KNOWS that his position is using this a priori. And the classicalists have fallen into the same friggin' trap. But Lion and I haven't. LOL This is why Lion is saying stuff like this:
"Do you not recognize that what I have said is not the same thing classical Christian theists, such as Bruce Ware, are saying? What I have articulated is not what Bruce Ware is saying."
Mephi:
This is also what Lion and I find so darn frustrating. We aren't saying what classical theist are saying. We're not gonna fall for that bunk. We are willing to accept God in ANY way that he is represented in the Scriptures. (Check the Study Break Question thread again) I will give an example of my thinking. Below is a matrix that shows my thinking. On the the y-axis are my and Doc's names. On the x-axis are the viewpoints. This is constructed based upon the assumption that the figures on the left have been presented with reasonable evidence that the views at the top are true. According to what has been said before by myself and Doc, I see this trend...
"Calvinistic God" "Open View God"
Mephi Accept Accept
Doc Reject Accept
Mephi:
Now remember. For this type of thinking I was accused of basically being a worshipper of power and not of God per se. I want to NOW show the faultiness of that thought. I don't worship power. I acknowledge what I generally believe to be true. Now let's look at Doc in this scenario. As you all remember, he 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! 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! 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.
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. This moral a priori is based on the idea of the love of God. (Notice how the "love" thing keeps coming up...EVEN in the most philosophical of discussions ) It is THIS reason, ladies and gentlemen, why the a priori really doesn't get the notice (and critique) that it should. Scripture itself talks about God's love. And unfortunately, no one takes the time to really understand that even though "love" is on the printed page, when a person READS that word, they may be importing ALL types of stuff into the meaning of that word. How else could "love" and "freedom" be so readily identified with one another, in the manner that open view theism uses the terms? They could NEVER get this from mere exegesis of the text. It had to be imported. To be fair, the Classicalists make the same mistake, but on the side of the "grandeur" of God. Hence the problematic attempts of Piper and Ware talking about the "glory" of God being at stake. The very TITLES of their books reveal their a priori biases. See, people, I'm catchin' all of this. You're probably saying..."Well, Meph. What's YOUR suppositions then." Glad you asked. My supposition is as follows: God is who God is! Worthyness is NOT based upon moral actions of God, but by the nature of Him being GOD. Now I want you to notice how THAT supposition doesn't allow me to fall into the traps that open view theists OR classicalists fall into. Because I attribute worthiness to God SIMPLY on the fact of his existence, I am free to deal more with the text and cohering it together WITHOUT fear of any moral or existential a priori!
This is partly why I've asked the questions on my "Dogmatism, Pragmatism, and the Power of Belief thread" If my thinking is correct, then what is being suggested here may be CONFIRMED on that thread. And then all will be fairly plain. (Y'all please answer those questions, ok?)
Before I get any statements that I am not understanding or misrepresenting the positions , some quotes:
From Doc:
Let us grant that there is a "gap" between who God is in and of himself, on the one hand, and how he reveals himself to us, on the other. This is a formal distinction devoid of content until we fill in it. But how one fills it in will depend, it seems to me, on a) how one interprets certain texts; and b) what one a priori deems to be "worthy of God." More traditional theists fill in the gap by positing a meta-narrative about a God who is unchanging, all determinative etc…. Only THIS God, they claim, is truly biblical and transcendent, and stands over and against the "anthropomorphic" depictions in Scripture. (((((((((((((Open Theists would "fill in the gap" by positing a meta-narrative about a God who is supremely changing, influential and not determinative – for exactly the same reasons. Hence, it seems to me that the real issue is exegesis and a priori commits to dignum deo (what is worthy of God )))))))))))))))))))-- is that the correct Latin Meph and LL?), not philosophy of language. [Emphasis mine]
From Modes:
"5. Bingo. Boyd's "b) what one a priori deems to be 'worthy of God'" is finally the decisive point."
From Doc:
"All of this is to argue that the real issue here is not philosophy of language, but a)exegesis and b) fundamental intuitions about what is "worthy of God."
[Mephi's Note: The above quote is misleading. Doc, now you KNOW that your "fundamental intuitions" are nothing more than "a priori suppositions"...which the exegesis would be using for a FRAMEWORK. Come on, now... ]
Let me state it again: I believe that open view theism is based on inadequate exegesis BASED ON AN A PRIORI VIEW OF DEITY centering on concepts that are ASSUMED about "love", particularly the "God of love"
Show me to be wrong.
Your Christian Brother,
Mephi2K
| | Back to Top | | |
| 83 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:36 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 |
|
|