• Reasoning


• Relating


• Determining


• Loving!

quote:

---

personhood implies a capacity to influence others and to be influenced by others

---

quote:

---

I’d say that our being persons has a great deal to do with our bearing the image of God.

---

quote:

---

Tom,

Just one quick clarification on a definition: I am using the terms personal and personality, out of habit, as you are using the term personhood. I think that we mean the same thing by these two terms and I will try to be more consistent with my usage in the future.

Chris

---

Gotcha!

Tom

Love never ends

quote:

---

Tom: “Personality” appears to me more to describe the unique ways reasoning, relating, and deciding (and emoting; let’s not forget our emotions!) combine in a single individual given that individual’s history, upbringing, surroundings, etc. Let’s stick to “personhood.”

---

As I mentioned above, I have been using personality with the same meaning that you are using personhood. That is how the people I have read have used it, so I just did that out of habit without ever mentioning it. Sorry.

quote:

---

Chris: One question that I would ask is if a God who is not totally self-determinate [self-contained, aseitic] can be totally personal. If God is bound by chance, time, logic, or any other impersonal force, they he is in that extent impersonal.
Tom: I need you to think of the right word there because I’m not exactly following you. Now, I see a problem in arguing that God is impersonal if he is temporal, faces possibilities, and is never illogical. You don’t argue that WE are impersonal because we are temporal, logical, and face possibilities. On what basis are you inclined to think God would be less than perfectly and maximally personal if he were to share these characteristics?

---

Is logic (or time, or chance) personal or is it impersonal?
Calvinist: Logic is personal because it is an attribute of God. The logical nature of this universe is a reflection of the logical nature of God. Hence, logic does not exist independently of God, but God is logical in the same sense that God is love. Because God is personal, therefore, logic becomes personal.
Open Theist: Logic is impersonal. God, just like everything we see in the world around us, is logical. He is non contra se and a perfect example of logical consistency. However, the laws of logic are outside God. He acts in a logical universe that is logical of its own nature, not in reflection of His.

quote:

---

I’m also uncomfortable with your describing these as “binding” God. Looks like there are some assumptions going on underneath here and I’m not sure what they are. We don’t argue that our experiencing the flow of time “binds” us in any way that makes us less than completely personal. We would not be more personal if we were timeless. Why think God is?

---

Does our subjection to logic and time reduce our personality?
Calvinist: No it does not, since logic and time are personal concepts reflecting God’s perfect personality.
Open Theist: Not it does not, since both we and God are subject to them and God is ultimate personality (an axiom of the system).

Would God’s subjection to logic and time reduce his personality?
Calvinist: If God were subject to logic and time, they would somehow be outside of Him. If that is the case, they would be impersonal forces and his subjection to them would make him less personal.
Open Theist: No, since God is ultimate personality and he is subject to logic and time (again, an appeal to an axiom, which is perfectly valid in this situation).

You get the idea in response to the next paragraph.

quote:

---

On logic, well, if the search machine worked you could check out a couple of good threads on why there’s no theological yardage to be gained in believing God exists outside of logic.

---

You have to love it when the search engines do not search.

Does God exist outside of logic:
Calvinist: No, he does not. He himself is the source and ultimate meaning of all logic, so in no sense can he exist outside of it.
Open Theist: Just like everything else we have ever seen in the universe, God does not exist outside of logic.

quote:

---

In terms of God’s being a perfectly and maximally personal being, there is nothing in his being temporal, facing possibilities, or being within logic which in itself makes God any less personal.

---

Having gone through this exercise, I would have to agree that, on your view, your statement is true. However, on a Calvinistic view, this is not the case. I guess that we are back at block one: what is personhood? Which view better does justice to it?

Now, I need to work on some homework for a little bit

Soli Deo Gloria,
Chris

quote:

---

As in the speaking of God almighty to Abraham, Job and Moses, etc.; God is present in person; not acting by representative; being immediate and personal.

---

quote:

---

Calvinist: Logic is personal…(it is an attribute of God)
Open Theist: Logic is impersonal…(it exists independently of God)
Tom: As an open theist, I’m inclined to agree with the Calvinist view here!

---

Well, so much for that distinction! I may wish to argue that I was presenting the necessary conclusions of the respective views, and not necessarily what those views taught, but for now let’s just look at your response.

quote:

---

I agree that logic flows from God. The rules of logic are what they are because God is who he is.

---

It sure sounds like we agree, but I just want to make sure that we really mean the same thing. We would agree that the world is logical (at least in the sense that it is not contradictory – non contra se). We agree that God is logical (in the same sense). What does it really mean to say that God is logical?

quote:

---

If you want to say this makes logic “personal” then fine. I wouldn’t. I think persons are personal. The rules of logic don’t constitute a person. But if being an attribute of God makes logic ‘personal’, that’s cool.

---

God is simple (simplicitas), is he not? God does not literally have hands, feet, and eyes. There are no divisions or parts of God. Even the cornerstone of divine diversity, the Trinity, is itself an expression of divine unity. Therefore, you cannot say that part of God is personal and part of God is logical. God is absolutely personal. Since he is simple, this means that every single one of his traits is personal, which includes logic.

quote:

---

I don’t follow how a person’s being subject to conditions (of that person’s existence) which are outside the person would necessarily make that person less of a person.

---

I will respond from a Calvinistic view. We, as humans, are subject to conditions outside of us such as logic and temporality. However, we are still personal since these are personal attributes and creations of God to which we are subject. However, if God is subject to anything, it must be an impersonal force since there is no personal being greater than he is. Therefore, for God to be subject to anything would make him impersonal.

quote:

---

I agree that God is not subject to time and logic in the sense of being constrained against his will by forces outside himself.

---

Could you define logic and time in relation to God? Did he create them, are they reflections of his character, etc?

quote:

---

Are you sure your Calvinist here isn’t an open theist?

---

Soli Deo Gloria,
Chris

[Edited for formatting]

Edited by - SeaKayaker on 02/20/2003 5:11:14 PM

Edited by - SeaKayaker on 02/20/2003 6:18:36 PM

quote:

---

Given what you’ve summarized about Calvinism, how is it the case that God’s being a perfectly and maximally personal being is incompatible with his being temporal or being within logic?

---

quote:

---

An immutable and impassible being cannot reason, relate interpersonally, and determine himself volitionally in love in ways we can understand, we are the only ways these categories may right be said to reveal God.

---

So nice of you to bring up such simple topics …but then again, that is why I came here. I do appreciate very much your comments since there are not many people that I know directly with whom I can discuss these sort of issues. My classmates just do not seem to think that this makes for the most interesting lunchtime conversations, for some reason .

On to the topic…lets put this in terms if two people, A and B (am not I creative?). If A forces B to act in a certain manner, then we would say that A is acting personally but that B is being forced to act and therefore not acting personally. The trouble comes when we use this analogy to think of God. If God acts personally in a situation, then we assume that man cannot also act personally in the same situation. However, do we have any basis for making this assertion? God is not a human being. I do not claim to understand how God and man can both act personally in the same situation, but then again neither to I claim to fully understand the Trinity (yet, I do believe that the Trinity can be used to transcendentally prove the truth of Christianity). This has only partially dealt with your question. I think that the other complication is that immutability makes absolutely no sense unless God transcends time. If God does not transcend time, immutability means that he is always doing the same thing (like a stuck record player). However, if God does transcend time, then immutability does not preclude him from interacting differently in different situations throughout human history.

Thanks for your responses. I am enjoying this discussion.
End of Response

Soli Deo Gloria,
Chris

quote:

---

The doctrine of divine simplicity states that God has absolutely no composition in his nature or being. Thus, the notion of simplicity operative here is the polar opposite of complexity. God is said to be an absolutely undifferentiated unity. This medieval doctrine is not popular among theologians today, and even when Christians do give lip service to it, they usually do not appreciate how truly radical the doctrine is. It implies not merely that God does not have parts, but that he does not possess even distinct attributes. In some mysterious way his omnipotence is his goodness, for example. He stands in no relations whatsoever. Thus, he does not literally love, know, or cause his creatures. He is not really composed of three distinct persons, a claim notoriously difficult to reconcile with the doctrine of the Trinity. His nature or essence is not even distinct from his existence, as assertion which led to the very difficult doctrine that God’s essence just is existence; He is, Thomas Aquinas tells us, the pure act of existing.”

---

Chris: I think that we can agree on Premise 1 once we consider the example. Next, we can consider Premises 2 and 3. You have said already that you consider logic impersonal and that God does not act outside of logic. Therefore, as I see it, the logically consistent outworking of those beliefs, taken together, is to deny God’s ultimate personality.

Tom: So toss out P2. Logic isn’t an “impersonal force” which constrains God’s actions. The argument falls.

When I insist upon logical coherence when talking about God, I’m agreeing that God’s transcendence may certainly mean he is more than the Bible’s descriptions of him reveal him to be, but if we are to maintain that Scripture “reveals” God to us it must also be true that God is not less than or contrary to what the Bible reveals him to be. Open theists don’t claim to possess an exhaustive understanding of the Triune nature of God or the incarnation. God is certainly beyond our comprehension. All I’m saying is that what God has chosen to reveal to us cannot meaningfully be embraced or expressed by us in self-contradictory terms. I think I said this before didn’t I? Sorry if I’m repeating it!

Chris: If A forces B to act in a certain manner, then we would say that A is acting personally but that B is being forced to act and therefore not acting personally. The trouble comes when we use this analogy to think of God. If God acts personally in a situation, then we assume that man cannot also act personally in the same situation. However, do we have any basis for making this assertion?

Tom: The question is rather, Do we have any basis for avoiding this conclusion? Now this is important Chris. You recognize that where A and B are human persons, logic demands that A’s exhaustively determining B’s actions renders B actions less than “personal.” And I agree. But you have a problem maintaining this where A is God. Why is that? I think given what you have said thus far in this thread that the burden of proof is on you to justify even questioning the conclusion that God’s exhaustively determining our actions renders us less than persons. I think we ought to assume as the ground option that the same holds true in both scenarios unless we have clear reasons to consider other options. But just saying, “God is not a human being” cannot prove that his exhaustively determining our actions does not render us less than persons especially if you already agree that what it means for us to be persons is rooted in, or rather derived from, what it means for God to be a person.

And I don’t see any biblical, logical, or existential reason whatsoever for supposing that we can remain fully personal where God is exhaustively determining our actions. What seems even more problematic is actually demonstrating this belief. How does one go about deliberating between two alternative courses of action in a manner which demonstrates the belief that one of those courses of action is was eternally determined by God.

So, Chris, you have the problem of a) justifying your objection to those who affirm we are less than personal if God determines our actions in the face of your agreeing that this is true where human persons are involved, and b) assuming you can do (a), demonstrating how one is to live out this belief.

Your Flatlanders analogy reminds me of Hugh Ross’s theory on God’s extra-dimensionality. Ross draws a lot on this sort of reasoning to argue that God exists in a sort of hyper-time in which our past, present, and future coexist in equally definiteness and are available for viewing (as it were) by a being (God) not limited to our time dimension. I’m not convinced. Even if extra-dimensionality were true, it would not provide God a basis upon which he could act providentially in the world. Such extra-dimensionality does nothing to explain the reciprocal nature of the relationship between God’s actions and our own.

Maybe others would like to jump in for a bit. I feel like I’m hogging the thread!

Tom


Edited by - TGB on 02/21/2003 08:10:22 AM