Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

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

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 1/12/2002 4:47 PM (GMT -6)

ANTINOMY

From Dr. Al Glenn's "Taking Your Faith to Work", pp146-148

(Al taught at Bethel College and also at Bethel Sem. West)

How many people have been alienated form the Christian faith because they found so little awe and profound reverence in the face of the unfathomable depth of existence that is characteristic of genuine piety. Reinhold Niebuhr, in a sermon on the text about seeing through a glass darkly (! Cor 13:12), says that Christian truth has suffered more from those who claim to know too much than from those who claim to know too little. The poet Tennyson aptly put it, "Our little systems have their day; They have their day and cease to be; They are but broken lights of Thee, And Thou, O Lord, art more than they."

Many Christians treat the mysteries of Christianity as problems to be solved. The philosopher Gabriel Marcel made a distinction between mysteries and problems. According to Marcel, a problem is something which can be solved, and which ceases to be mysterious when it is solved. It falls into the category of the purely natural. Mystery is something fundamentally different, and although we are tempted to turn a mystery into a problem, this temptation must be resisted. Nor is mystery something which ceases to be a mystery after it has been revealed. Paul Tillich says, "What is not known today, but which might possibly be known tomorrow, is not a mystery."

Many Christians are not content to accept antinomies in the Bible. Antinomies are clear examples of mystery. Antinomy may be defined as two truths, both of which are capable of equal demonstration in the Bible, but which cannot be reconciled rationally from the finite standpoint. The doctrine of election is a clear example of an antinomy. Both divine sovereignty and human responsibility are taught in Scripture (Rom 9, 10). Jesus' twofold nature as both human and divine is likewise an antinomy. an antinomy is not a paradox. A paradox is a logical contradiction. An antinomy is ultimately rational. Its harmonious resolution is presently known only to God and is therefore a mystery from man's standpoint. A mystery is simply a finite eclipse of divine wisdom seen as an antinomy.

How is it possible to tell the difference between a paradox (logical contradiction) and an antinomy? An antinomy stands the test of time -- historical corroboration. Antinomies are metaphysical absolutes. They are found at the threshold of finite thought and are impossible to resolve. Kant spoke of antinomies as the outer limits of reason's categories of understanding while Aristotle spoke of antinomies as the inner limits of rationality or the first principles of thought. Such truth-mysteries must be accepted a priori as presuppositions of all thought, On the other hand, a paradox can and should be exposed as a logical contradiction.

Sergus Bulgakov, a noted Russian Orthodox theologian, not only correctly defines theological antinomy, but goes one step further in telling is how we should deal with these mysteries in our faith:

quote:
An antinomy simultaneously admits the truth of two [apparently] contradictory, logically incompatible, but ontologically equally necessary assertions. An antinomy testifies to the existence of a mystery beyond which the human reason cannot penetrate. This mystery nevertheless is actualized and lived in religious experience. All fundamental dogmatic definitions are of this nature.

Thus, while mystery cannot be explained, its reality can become a matter of experience. Job did not receive a rational answer to the mystery of suffering. God did, however, give a revelation of Himself to Job so that he could live through the experience.

quote:
Then Job answered the Lord: "I know that though canst do all things, and that no purpose of thine can be thwarted. 'Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?' Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know" (Job 42:1-3)

Like Job, I would rather have an encounter with almighty God transcending the mystery than merely a sterile intellectual cognition. The poet Rilke wrote, "Be patient toward all that is unsolved in your heart and try to live the questions themselves. Do not now seek the answers that cannot be given you because you would not be able to live them; and the point is, to live everything. Live the questions now." We can reword this and say. "Live the mystery now."

. . . . .

BJS
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587

Posted 1/12/2002 8:07 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
How is it possible to tell the difference between a paradox (logical contradiction) and an antinomy? An antinomy stands the test of time -- historical corroboration. Antinomies are metaphysical absolutes. They are found at the threshold of finite thought and are impossible to resolve. Kant spoke of antinomies as the outer limits of reason's categories of understanding while Aristotle spoke of antinomies as the inner limits of rationality or the first principles of thought. Such truth-mysteries must be accepted a priori as presuppositions of all thought, On the other hand, a paradox can and should be exposed as a logical contradiction.

Sounds like a creative way to dodge an inconsistency in one's argument to me. I don't find it coincidental that Dr. Glenn uses the doctrine of election as his example of antinomy. It seems that Calvinists are always attempting to conjure up more and more convoluted ways to avoid admitting that their position is illogical. This piece is another fine example.

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

writerdad
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448

Posted 1/12/2002 8:28 PM (GMT -6)

BJS: I agree 1oo percent with BJS. But,I must admit, taking the "antinomy"stance sure does solve a lot of problems. Instead of wrestling with the true questions of the Bible and debating them with non-christians why don't we call them ALL antimonies and live on our little clouds. Because that is what you will end up doing. Praise God, have we not found the true answer! Everything is mystery! We don't to be rational about ANYTHING!
On another note, the argument POW is making is assuming a certain kind of sovereignty for God that many (such as myself) do not believe the Bible teaches. As such, the antinomy factor wouldn't work for me. But I do find using the "mystery" card just as disconcerning as those who use it would be with the "rationalism" card. Once you use it, you stifle all debate and dialogue because there is nowhere to go. Plus, I find his "definition" of the differences weak. Harold

Mephi2K
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713

Posted 1/13/2002 5:07 AM (GMT -6)

Ah...FINALLY. I've just been WAITING to talk about this!

I want to take this in 2 parts. In the first part, I want to give some definitions of some terms and talk about their applications in certain theological and philosophical matters. Second, I want to deal with the problem I see with the supposed opposition of applied rationality to authentic piety.

Part I: Definitions and Discussions: What Are We Dealing With?

mystery
antinomy
contradiction
paradox
complementarity

All of the following definitions are directly from http://www.dictionary.com and indirectly from the Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (WRU) and The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition (AHD)

ANTIMONY

(AHD) an·tin·o·my (n-tn-m)
n. pl. an·tin·o·mies
1. Contradiction or opposition, especially between two laws or rules.

2. A contradiction between principles or conclusions that seem equally necessary and reasonable; a paradox.

(WRU) antinomy \An*tin"o*my\ (?; 277), n.; pl. Antinomies. [L. antinomia, Gr. ?; ? against + ? law.]

1. Opposition of one law or rule to another law or rule.

Different commentators have deduced from it the very opposite doctrines. In some instances this apparent antinomy is doubtful. --De Quincey.

2. An opposing law or rule of any kind.

As it were by his own antinomy, or counterstatute. --Milton.

3. (Metaph.) A contradiction or incompatibility of thought or language; -- in the Kantian philosophy, such a contradiction as arises from the attempt to apply to the ideas of the reason, relations or attributes which are appropriate only to the facts or the concepts of experience.

PARADOX

(AHD) par·a·dox (pr-dks)
n.

1. A seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true: the paradox that standing is more tiring than walking.

2. One exhibiting inexplicable or contradictory aspects: “The silence of midnight, to speak truly, though apparently a paradox, rung in my ears” (Mary Shelley).

3. An assertion that is essentially self-contradictory, though based on a valid deduction from acceptable premises.

4. A statement contrary to received opinion.

(WRU)paradox \Par`a*dox\, n.; pl. Paradoxes. [F. paradoxe, L. paradoxum, fr. Gr. ?; ? beside, beyond, contrary to + ? to think, suppose, imagine. See Para-, and Dogma.] A tenet or proposition contrary to received opinion; an assertion or sentiment seemingly contradictory, or opposed to common sense; that which in appearance or terms is absurd, but yet may be true in fact.

MYSTERY

(AHD)mys·ter·y1 (mst-r)
n. pl. mys·ter·ies
1. One that is not fully understood or that baffles or eludes the understanding; an enigma: How he got in is a mystery.

2. One whose identity is unknown and who arouses curiosity: The woman in the photograph is a mystery.

3. A mysterious character or quality: a landscape with mystery and charm.

4. A work of fiction, a drama, or a film dealing with a puzzling crime.

5. The skills, lore, or practices that are peculiar to a particular activity or group and are regarded as the special province of initiates. Often used in the plural: the mysteries of Freemasonry; the mysteries of cooking game.

6. A religious truth that is incomprehensible to reason and knowable only through divine revelation.

a. An incident from the life of Jesus, especially the Incarnation, Passion, Crucifixion, or Resurrection, of particular importance for redemption.
b. One of the 15 incidents from the lives of Jesus or the Blessed Virgin Mary, such as the Annunciation or the Ascension, serving in Roman Catholicism as the subject of meditation during recitation of the rosary.

8 a. also Mystery One of the sacraments, especially the Eucharist.
b. mysteries The consecrated elements of the Eucharist.

9. a. A religious cult practicing secret rites to which only initiates are admitted.
b. A secret rite of such a cult.

(WRU)mystery \Mys"ter*y\, n.; pl. Mysteries. [L. mysterium, Gr. ?, fr. ? one initiated in mysteries; cf. ? to initiate into the mysteries, fr. ? to shut the eyes. Cf. Mute, a.] 1. A profound secret; something wholly unknown, or something kept cautiously concealed, and therefore exciting curiosity or wonder; something which has not been or can not be explained; hence, specifically, that which is beyond human comprehension.

We speak the wisdom of God in a mystery. --1 Cor. ii. 7.

If God should please to reveal unto us this great mystery of the Trinity, or some other mysteries in our holy religion, we should not be able to understand them, unless he would bestow on us some new faculties of the mind. --Swift.

2. A kind of secret religious celebration, to which none were admitted except those who had been initiated by certain preparatory ceremonies; -- usually plural; as, the Eleusinian mysteries.

3. pl. The consecrated elements in the eucharist.

4. Anything artfully made difficult; an enigma.

CONTRADICTION

(AHD)con·tra·dic·tion (kntr-dkshn)
n.

1. The act of contradicting.
The state of being contradicted.

2. A denial.

3. Inconsistency; discrepancy.

4. Something that contains contradictory elements.

(WRU)contradiction \Con`tra*dic"tion\, n. [L. contradictio answer, objection: cf. F. contradiction.] 1. An assertion of the contrary to what has been said or affirmed; denial of the truth of a statement or assertion; contrary declaration; gainsaying.

His fair demands Shall be accomplished without contradiction. --Shak.

2. Direct opposition or repugnancy; inconsistency; incongruity or contrariety; one who, or that which, is inconsistent.

can be make deathless death? That were to make Strange contradiction. --Milton.

We state our experience and then we come to a manly resolution of acting in contradiction to it. --Burke.

Both parts of a contradiction can not possibly be true. --Hobbes.

Of contradictions infinite the slave. --Wordsworth.

Principle of contradiction (Logic), the axiom or law of thought that a thing cannot be and not be at the same time, or a thing must either be or not be, or the same attribute can not at the same time be affirmed and and denied of the same subject.

Note: It develops itself in three specific forms which have been called the ``Three Logical Axioms.'' First, ``A is A.'' Second, ``A is not Not-A'' Third, ``Everything is either A or Not-A.''

COMPLEMENTARITY

This def is from : WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

complementarity n 1: a relation between two opposite states or principles that together exhaust the possibilities 2: the interrelation of reciprocity whereby one thing supplements or depends on the other; "the complementarity of the sexes"

Definition 1 is what we want. From what I understand this idea chiefly came from the work of Neils Bohr with the beginnings of quantum theory

Whew. Ok. Now let's take a step back. The first thing that I want us to recognize is that Writerdad may have really been onto something when he said that he found Dr. Glenn's definitions and distinctions a bit weak. Just looking at the definitions that I have presented above, it doesn't seem that the distinctions can be as clear cut as Dr. Glenn tries to make it out. ALL of the defintions above have ONE thing in common: APPARENT, face value absurdity and/or incomprehensibility. In other words, whether you are dealing with an antinomy OR a paradox, an apparent CONTRADICTION is seen as being involved. This just has to be straight up acknowledged. How Dr. Glenn wants to say that antimonies are NOT paradoxes is beyond me.

So what do I think the chief assumption that separates mystery, paradox, and antinomy from complementarity from ACTUAL (not just apparent) contradiction? Simple. The state of a perceived contradiction, GIVEN OMNISCIENCE. In other words, a genuine contradiction would be something that EVEN AN OMNISCIENT BEING would have to say is complete nonsense. For example, square circles and stuff like that. Logical contradictions that BY VERY DEFINITION cannot exist. An antimony, mystery, complementarity, or paradox would be something that may ultimately be rational or explanable, but ONLY to an OMNISCIENT, INFINITE being.

But check it out. Have you noticed something? If we go by the safe assumption that all human perceivers are finite (meaning not omniscient) HOW could any human being hope to OBJECTIVELY demonstrate the distinction between a ACTUAL contradiction and an APPARENT one...besides relying on LOGICAL contradictions that can be philosophically demonstrated (like the square circle thing) Taking this to theology, by WHAT standard could anyone say that ONE aspect of dogma is rank contradiction while another aspect of dogma is merely "mystery"? NONE. It would be completely presuppositional and ARBITRARY. Writerdad was right on about this one.

Here's an example. When you break all this open view vs classical theism stuff down, it's just like Doc has been saying: the ARBITRARY location of "mystery". For people who definitely want to keep the assumption that love relationships NECESSITATE libertarian free will, any view that contradicts this will be seen as contradictory, not mysterious. So while classical theists would want to say that the divine sovereignty/human responsibility idea really CAN be thought of in compatibilistic terms by employing the idea of antinomy, open view theists say "HECK, NO! It's contradiction." But surely you guys see that this just goes ARBITRARILY from the presuppositions! Since none of us are omniscient, there's no way that we could really verify the verity of our assumptions regarding the issue (and I wish both sides would own up to the truth of this!!) And the so-called "evidence" for either side comes down to possibilities. Think about it. Doc and others want to always clammor that the POSSIBILE ASSUMPTION must be allowed that somehow ontological determinism exists. But with the controversial "evidence" that we have that can genuinely go EITHER WAY...you still end up with the same problem: arbitrariness. Whereas people like John Frame, Bruce Ware and others would want to say that human freedom and responsibility is completely, yet mysteriously, reconcilable with EDF (seemingly based on biblical evidence), Doc, John Sanders, Clark Pinnock and others would say nope...it's contradiction (based ALSO on biblical evidence). Restated another way, classical theists would want more to use the principle of complementarity on the issue, while open view theists would say that it's not necessary to do so because of the "clear" contradiction involved. See the presuppositional problem?

Getting back to the main thing here. What I'm trying to get across is what I've been TRYING to get across for the past 5 months at least:

When discussing the ideas of mystery, paradox, antimony, and contradiction, like beauty, IT'S ALL ULTIMATELY IN THE EYES OF THE BEHOLDER!

No one can get away from this. Now, Dr. Glenn tries. How? By this statement:

quote:
How is it possible to tell the difference between a paradox (logical contradiction) and an antinomy? An antinomy stands the test of time -- historical corroboration. Antinomies are metaphysical absolutes. They are found at the threshold of finite thought and are impossible to resolve. Kant spoke of antinomies as the outer limits of reason's categories of understanding while Aristotle spoke of antinomies as the inner limits of rationality or the first principles of thought. Such truth-mysteries must be accepted a priori as presuppositions of all thought, On the other hand, a paradox can and should be exposed as a logical contradiction.

This statement can be taken two ways, and given POW's inclination for Orthodox thought, I (perhaps wrongly) assume it has to do with both.

1) The assumption is made that progressive understanding of our world decreases the amount of contradictory or mysterious things we see in the world. Therefore, whatever things end up being left after all the centuries of discussion and discovery are probably METAPHYSICAL ABSOLUTES that are just the way things are. Otherwise, it have been found out by now.

2) On the more religious route, historical corroboration would be seen more in the line of CHURCH TRADITION. Given sufficient trust in the Holy Spirit's guidance of the church, it is believed that any apparent contradictions that have stood the test of time in the Church historically should be seen as "Spirit-preserved"

Here's my problem with both lines of thought. The first one seems to pretty much assume that we've discovered all the major things to be discovered about our reality. While some may argue this, this seems to be pretty naive to me. As we should know from human history, all it takes is the finding of ONE seemingly miniscule thing to create a complete paradigm shift of thinking. One thing to be "revealed" to revise AGES of previous thought. It seems borderline presumptuous to me to think that just because certain antinomies have held up over time that they CANNOT be dispelled. I think we should think of these matters like scientific theories: never truly "proven", just FAILED to be disproven by whatever means up until the present time. The second line of thought seems to not take into account the HUMANNESS of the Church and it's historical nature. Another truth that has been borne out historically is that some of the reasons answers are not found is because the WRONG QUESTIONS were being asked, for whatever reason (political, cultural, epistemological, etc) Truly THINK about the whole Galileo thing. Bottom line: our Scriptural interpretations have changed as the zietgeists have. And I think it's possible to ignore that fact. True, consistancy throughout the ages can be seen as bolstering a certain idea's popularity or "truth". But it can ALSO be seen as just not being the right time for a given paradigm shift. Know what I mean?

All this is just to say that "historical corroboration", however it is described, has it's issues and does NOT, by itself, serve as a good distinction creator between contradictions and antinomies.

Summing Up:

I get kinda tired of the whole "mystery" crud in theology. Chiefly because, to me, no one will just ante up to the fact that, at base, the WHOLE THING is presuppositional. You place your "mystery card" here, I'll put mine there. Once this is FORMALLY understood, then I believe that more humility would be shown in the whole discussion. See, I don't dislike mystery just because it introduces ambiguity. Theology wouldn't be theology without ambiguity SOMEWHERE. But darn it, let's be completely HONEST about all the facts that we get...especially when we get into the realm of the "contradiction vs antinomy" discussion. Let's not fall into just accepting absurdities uncritically just because they've been around a long time...and let's also not fall into the problem of creating theologies that are nothing more then lists of CONTRIVED thinking to rationalize our unspoken PRESUPPOSITIONS. That's all I want.

End of Part I.

PS: It's gonna be LATER for the other one...

Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.

Edited by - mephi2K on 01/13/2002 10:08:21 AM

BJS
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587

Posted 1/13/2002 9:08 AM (GMT -6)

This thread also raises an issue that I have been waiting to discuss, and Mephi's last post has given me the room to raise it now.

Clearly, as finite beings, we are left with mysteries (antinomies, paradoxes, whatever five-dollar word you want to come up with). I have often wondered why we are left to struggle and strain for the Truth. Why not make the Truth more obvious? Why does the wizard hide behind a curtain, and force us to wonder whether he is real or not? Not only is Truth difficult to discover, it is difficult to communicate as well. So much is left to "interpretation" as Mephi points out, with substantive evidence for more than one point of view.

Now my struggle with this facet of human existence does not lead me down the road toward moral relativity, but it does make me wonder about God. Why are we even left to wonder who he is and what he wants? Why aren't we given all the facts up front, so to speak, so that we can make an informed decision?

Now I have a few ideas about this, but in true Mephi style, I'll wait for others to get the conversation going so that I do not too quickly limit its scope.

[Hope everyone's having a nice weekend. It's a gorgeous 65 degree day here in Austin, Texas.]

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 1/13/2002 9:26 AM (GMT -6)

Boy, I feel like the little kid who started the snowball at the top of the hill... Great, Mephi!

Meph said: This statement can be taken two ways, and given POW's inclination for Orthodox thought, I (perhaps wrongly) assume it has to do with both.

Do you catch that Al Glenn taught at Bethel, and is a Bethel Alumn. (His book was written for his unsaved father.) He is BGC.

Meph, you once said that you would like to be in one of my classes. You just were. As a teacher I KNOW that students get more from each other than from me. Where you gave me credit for having an "inclination" in this matter, I merely wanted to put it on the table to get people going. (The "A" students taught the class!) I just tried to come up to a level of literacy... The Kant and Aristotle quotes were new to me. But I can accept that persons could settle on those views. I can accept your critique. I believe that the same thoughts passed through my own mind too -- but not so well formed.

1-- My own thought on the "that progressive understanding of our world decreases..." is that it is the other way around! At least in science, the more "they" learn the more there seems to be explored. (Geometric progression?)

2-- As to the "sufficient trust in the Holy Spirit's guidance of the church" I agree with your critique of "the HUMANNESS of the Church and it's historical nature". I think that the Orthodox would too. The track of doctrinal formation has not been straight and simple. Things are technically "open" still. (There could still be another counsel.) To affirm the "Holy Spirit's guidance" does not contradict your critique.

I took what I typed from Glenn to be pretty good common sense. I didn't see it as "proof."

But, while I can empathize with the "cruddy" feeling that mystery leaves in your mouth. And I can agree.

Still, what do you do in the mean time? (especially as you get older...) How do you handle what you can't (at the moment) know IN COMPARISON with what you experience. As Glenn added -- and so I continued to type:

quote:
God did, however, give a revelation of Himself to Job so that he could live through the experience.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then Job answered the Lord: "I know that though canst do all things, and that no purpose of thine can be thwarted. 'Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?' Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know" (Job 42:1-3)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Like Job, I would rather have an encounter with almighty God transcending the mystery than merely a sterile intellectual cognition. The poet Rilke wrote, "Be patient toward all that is unsolved in your heart and try to live the questions themselves. Do not now seek the answers that cannot be given you because you would not be able to live them; and the point is, to live everything. Live the questions now." We can reword this and say. "Live the mystery now."

I'm around a lot of Reformed Christians. Their self-criticism is interesting. They (some of them) find that they have put too much weight and attention to knowing, and not enough to being/doing/experiencing. Here are some recently published comments on Communion by a small denominational task force.

In the Reformed tradition, we've been tempted to equate celebratingp the sacraments with teaching a proper theological understanding of the sacraments.
We too often focus on what we do in the sacraments rather than on what God is doing.
...I don't think we pay enough attention to the transformative power of practicing the sacraments.
We need to restore eschatological dimension of communion. We celebrate with the cloud of witnesses who have gone before. The Lord's Supper is something we celebrate now but will also celebrate more fully in the new kingdom.
I think we need to rethink the idea of the Eucharistic sacrifice in the Reformed context. We're so afraid of the Roman Catholic position that we've abandoned the idea of sacrifice altogether, even though it's eminently biblical. I think the best way is to restate the Pauline ideas from 1 Corinthians 10 in a fresh way. How about thinking about the Eucharist as our participation in the sacrifice of Christ on the cross? This is a sacrificial meal, not in the sense that we re-offer the sacrifice offered once and for all, but that each time we eat and drink we are freely offered our share in that sacrifice. Our participation reaffirms to our hearts and minds the validity of Christ's sacrifice and the Holy Spirit applies it again to us.

So, in practical terms, I think that Glenn's comments can be useful in ferreting out a few paradoxes that are masquerading as mysteries, AND giving us permission to experience what we know we should experience through aptitudes other than rational routines.

I AM REALLY LOOKING FORWARD TO YOUR NEXT INSTALLMENT, MEPH!

Edited by - potonwheel on 01/13/2002 5:13:49 PM

BJS
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587

Posted 1/13/2002 2:03 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
Meph, you once said that you would like to be in one of my classes. You just were. As a teacher I KNOW that students get more from each other than from me. Where you gave me credit for having an "inclination" in this matter, I merely wanted to put it on the table to get people going. (The "A" students taught the class!)

PoW, where do you teach?

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 1/13/2002 2:26 PM (GMT -6)

I teach art to special-ed. kids. Our school is in a convent. But I also have taught 4 years of H.S. art and 10 years of art in residential Christian liberal arts colleges. I also direct traffic during bus duty--where my motto is: "To Deflect and Swerve."

PoW

Edited by - potonwheel on 01/13/2002 7:28:26 PM

BJS
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587

Posted 1/13/2002 4:46 PM (GMT -6)

What a groovy job. My wife teaches third grade.

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

writerdad
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448

Posted 1/13/2002 6:34 PM (GMT -6)

BJS: you ask why things are not more plain. Frederick Beuchner once said :Without somehow destroying me in the process, how could God reveal himself in a way that would leave no room for doubt? If there were no room for doubt, there would be no room for me.
I don't believe there is any way God could reveal himself that would preclude interpretation and doubt. If he reveals himself so much that there is no doubt we would be left without choice and would be overwhemed by his presense. Harold

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 1/14/2002 3:49 AM (GMT -6)

Meph man!

Below are three quotes from you post here. I'd like to comment about them...

"So while classical theists would want to say that the divine sovereignty/human responsibility idea really CAN be thought of in compatibilistic terms by employing the idea of antinomy, open view theists say "HECK, NO! It's contradiction." But surely you guys see that this just goes ARBITRARILY from the presuppositions! Since none of us are omniscient, there's no way that we could really verify the verity of our assumptions regarding the issue (and I wish both sides would own up to the truth of this!!)"

"But with the controversial "evidence" that we have that can genuinely go EITHER WAY...you still end up with the same problem: arbitrariness. Whereas people like John Frame, Bruce Ware and others would want to say that human freedom and responsibility is completely, yet mysteriously, reconcilable with EDF (seemingly based on biblical evidence), Doc, John Sanders, Clark Pinnock and others would say nope...it's contradiction (based ALSO on biblical evidence). Restated another way, classical theists would want more to use the principle of complementarity on the issue, while open view theists would say that it's not necessary to do so because of the "clear" contradiction involved. See the presuppositional problem?"

And finally,

"I get kinda tired of the whole "mystery" crud in theology. Chiefly because, to me, no one will just ante up to the fact that, at base, the WHOLE THING is presuppositional."

While I certainly agree that time allowing whatever's left to be the authority for an antinomy to stand the test is unreasonable, it seems to me that it's to go too far to embrase the issue as unsolvable because of soley presupposition. For there is the element of common epistemology that should be considered.

I can know that red is red and green is green regardless of the physics that come into play to make it such. This much I can know. Hek, I can know that I know, therefore I can know other things as well. Whatever presuppositions that are brought into knowledge shouldn't be treated as cast-asides unless they have been proven to be futile and unnecessary; if they aid in knowing because they've proven in past to be true.

It would seem knowable via Scripture whether God is open or classic. Oh, that's not to say there aren't challenging passages either way, but some things CAN be established, and some things CAN be known. If it weren't so, you'd not be able to read and understand what I'm writing (unless I'm the most hopless, grammatically frustrated writer you've ever read!).

I'd say that open theology is far more knowable than classic or calvinistic interpretation calling for much less presupposition. Perhaps not completey knowable but enough. I don't believe, that open theology is knowable because I've come to it with unwarranted presuppositions, but because a simple reading of many texts can't help but lead one to believe such. It is quite true, however, that presuppositions would do much at this point to hinder my accepting what I can know. Ah, but the same could be said about the other side of the camp, could it not? predestination, or foreknowledge? BUT, and this is the crux, I don't believe that it isn't presuppositions that would initially lead one to the various interpretations for open view theology (oh, okay, maybe some presups), but the basics from an epistemolgical approach: I can know if it's been afforded me to know. I have, however, found calvinistic thinking far more presuppositionally trenched then the classic view, I'll confess to that. But I've not found the same true for the open view, nor with regard to the omnibenenevolence of God (as I posted on your "Tutor" site). It's just what seems, at least more so, to be knowable.

For the conversation,

Starkman

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 1/18/2002 12:19 PM (GMT -6)

This portion of text from a contemporary Greek (He is a university professor in Athens, Greece) scholar is integrally related to the quote from Basil the Great's comments in "Epistle CCXXXIV" in the"a classic apophatic statement" thread. It belongs here too. There Basil says:

"But we say that we know our God from His operations,
But do not undertake to approach near to His essence.
His operations come down to us,
But His essence remains beyond our reach."

The Yannaras text below is differnt, though. it is written to us and our thinking. In the last paragraph he elaborates on this sentence: "If we accept evaluative definitions of the Godhead, we make the personal distinctives of divine love subordinate to them, and consequently do away with it." to get into that one you will have to read below. Here is a clue: "being stems not from the essence, which would make it an ontological necessity, but from the person and the freedom of its love which 'hypostasizes' being into a personal and trinitarian communion..." The impact of what he writes is seen in: If we accept evaluative definitions of the Godhead, we make the personal distinctives of divine love subordinate to them, and consequently do away with it. Evaluative categories could refer only to nature or essence, but then personal distinctiveness would be subordinated to the necessity imposed by natural definitions, and consequently, once again, it would be non-existant or substantially curtailed.. In that case, the person of God would "undergo" whatever happened to the nature.

The topic is VERY important!

============================================

from Christos Yannaras' "The Freedom of Morality",
(Ch. 1 -- The Masks of Morality and the Ethos of the Person, pp. 16-18)
--------------------------------------------

. . .

In the tradition of the Orthodox Church, we define morality through studying the existential truth of man. This means beginning with the ontological question: what is being, and what does it mean for man to be? What relationship is there between what he is as a biological entity and being in itself, the definitive and immutable potential for existence? Does the individual distinctiveness of each human being, the unique distinct and unrepeatable expression of his physical build, his speech, his thought, his creative capacity and his love, partake in being and have ontological substance? Or is it simply an ephemeral and incidental biological differentiation, inexorably predetermined by the necessity of man's "species" or "nature"?

It is clear that without answering the question about being, about the boundless and true potential for existence, it is impossible to approach the existential adventure of man's freedom -- the way he preserves or loses the universal potentialities for life, which is to say his morality. In the Orthodox Church, therefore, when we are to study the truth about man and his morality we start with the truth about being with its source and cause: we start from the acceptance of God's revelation, from the truth about God.

4. The ethos of trinitarian communion

In the life of the Church, God reveals Himself as the hypostasis of being, the personal hypostasis of eternal life, exhaustive expression of the truth of being. It is not the essence of the energy of God which constitutes being, But His personal mode of existence: God as person is the hypostasis and life: God is not a vague supreme being, and impersonal essence which may be approached only through the intellect or the emotions. Nor is He a "prime mover," a blind energy which sets in motion the mechanism of the world; not yet an image of man exalted into an absolute, and infinite magnification of the individual characteristics and psychological demands of the human being. The God of whom the Church has experience is the God who reveals Himself in history as personal existence, as distinctiveness and freedom. God is person, and He speaks with man "face to grace, as a man speaketh unto his friend" (Ex 33:11).

It is precisely as personal existence, as distinctiveness and freedom from any predetermination by essence or nature, that God constitutes being and is the hypostasis of being. When Moses asks the identity of the God whose will he is to proclaim to the Israelites, the answer is "I am He who is" (Ex 3:14. God identifies the truth of existence, the reality of being, with His personal hypostasis. This means that the divine essence or nature is not an ontological reality prior to God's personal existence and determining it: God's being is not an ontological datum, anterior to the distinctiveness and freedom of the divine person. Rather, it is the personal expression of His being. :And when speaking to Moses, God did not say, 'I am essence; but, 'I am He who is': for He who is,, is not from the essence, but the essence is from Him who is. He who is has comprehended within Himself all being."(1)

In Defense of the Holy Hesychasts;

The identification of being with the personal existence of God -- as identification with vital consequences for the truth of man and human morality -- explains the revelation of the God of the Church, who is one and at the same time trinitarian. The one God is not one divine nature of essence, but primarily one person: the one person of God the Father. The personal existence of God (the Father) constitutes His essence or being, making it into "hypsostasis": freely and from love He begets the Son and causes the Holy Spirit to proceed.(2) Consequently, being stems not from the essence, which would make it an ontological necessity, but from the person and the freedom of its love which "hypostasizes" being into a personal and trinitarian communion, God the Father's mode of being constitutes existence and life as a fact of love and personal communion.

The identification of being with the freedom of love -- of that love which forms being into hypostases -- reveals that the truth of the ethos or morality is equivalent to the truth of being. When we speak of the unity and communion of the three divine persons, we are referring to God's mode of being, which is the ethos of divine life. And the ethos of God is identical with this being. When the Christian revelation declares that "God is love" (1 Jn 4:16), it is not referring to one among many properties of God's "behavior," but to what God is as the fullness of trinitarian and personal communion.

Scholia on the Divine Names

Thus love is singled out as the ontological category par excellence, the only possibility for existence, since it is through love that God gives substance to His essence, and constitutes His being. Any other definition of God's ethos with evaluative content is ontologically unfounded: it applies a priori conventional predicates, taken from philosophical thought or social experience, to the mode of divine existence, which is nothing other than personal distinctiveness and the freedom of love. If we accept evaluative definitions of the Godhead, we make the personal distinctives of divine love subordinate to them, and consequently do away with it. Evaluative categories could refer only to nature or essence, but then personal distinctiveness would be subordinated to the necessity imposed by natural definitions, and consequently, once again, it would be non-existant or substantially curtailed.. In that case, the person of God would "undergo" whatever happened to the nature. The "accidents" of the nature would be "passions" of the person -- things undergone passively. This is why St. Maximus the Confessor affirms of the Godhead: "It is neither beautiful nor good: for these are as it were passions, and conditions and accidents." (3)

Scholia on the Divine Names

On Mystical Theology

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 1/18/2002 12:42 PM (GMT -6)

Cut and paster, cut and paste, cut and paste!

POW, If I didn't know how already, I have learned to cut and paste after reading your posts (can't sit on the web to read them because we only have one line!!)

Thanks much, POW.

Oh, and I've really been going over some thinking about the penal concept of Christ's sufferings, and I must confess that I don't see it (at least not yet) being taught in Scripture, the only hint of it so far being Isaiah 53 where it states "He was smitten by God for our sakes", etc. However, even that has to be re-evalutated!

Also, I'm appreciating more and more a more ontological connection between what Christ did (as in Romans 6) and how it has a literal incorporation of our very being into this work...not just theologically but vivaciously, lively, lifely and genuinely! This has been as a result of the posts you did on orthodoxy verse western thinking.

Thanks!

Starkman

Mephi2K
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713

Posted 1/19/2002 3:43 AM (GMT -6)

POW,

I'm sorry, man. I won't be completing my second installment here. Gonna take a break for a minute. Perhaps I can explain later.

Thanks,

Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 1/19/2002 6:09 AM (GMT -6)

Meph....That's COOL.

Starkman.....WOW!

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 1/19/2002 6:11 AM (GMT -6)

Starkman, we have only one line too. So I have to save them and read stuf later.

Mephi2K
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713

Posted 1/22/2002 4:04 AM (GMT -6)

Dang. This board is on fire like what! Well, I've done what I've need to do. So now it's time to party. I'll start here...

Stark said:

quote:
While I certainly agree that time allowing whatever's left to be the authority for an antinomy to stand the test is unreasonable, it seems to me that it's to go too far to embrase the issue as unsolvable because of soley presupposition. For there is the element of common epistemology that should be considered.

I can know that red is red and green is green regardless of the physics that come into play to make it such. This much I can know. Hek, I can know that I know, therefore I can know other things as well. Whatever presuppositions that are brought into knowledge shouldn't be treated as cast-asides unless they have been proven to be futile and unnecessary; if they aid in knowing because they've proven in past to be true.

I wouldn't say that the issue is unsolvable, meaning that we must fall into rampant agnosticism about all things. I would say that the issue is unREsolvable in any absolute sense, because of the subjectivity involved. This becomes especially evident when we look at what at the various worldviews in the world.

Next, you speak about a "common epistemology" I'm not sure, but I think that you are referring to common epistemological ASSUMPTIONS (which are presuppositions) Some of these would probably be like...

1) Something exists
2) Memory and sense perception are sometimes reliable sources of information.

and stuff like that. I would completely agree with this. But notice how fundamental these types of epistemological assumptions really are. One could go from these assumptions in a MYRIAD of different mutually exclusive ways. So, for the sake of evaluating theological assumptions, looking at these types of assumptions as given a common epistemological base, it really gives limited utility. The best that doing this does is to go AGAINST unqualified agnosticism and skepticism. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the INHERENT circular nature of rationality...and the apparent ignorance that some people have of that fact.

__________________________________________

Stark said:

quote:
It would seem knowable via Scripture whether God is open or classic. Oh, that's not to say there aren't challenging passages either way, but some things CAN be established, and some things CAN be known. If it weren't so, you'd not be able to read and understand what I'm writing (unless I'm the most hopless, grammatically frustrated writer you've ever read!).

Again, it seems that you are arguing against someone advocating complete agnosticism here. But that's not what I'm advocatig.

__________________________________________

Stark:

quote:
I'd say that open theology is far more knowable than classic or calvinistic interpretation calling for much less presupposition.

Again, this is just my thought, but I think what you may have been saying here was that, to you, open theology is much more INTUITIVE than classical theology. Therefore, it needs less specifically ARTICULATED presuppositions. But some very important things. First of all, just because open view theism is more intuitive to human interaction doesn't mean that MANY presuppositions don't exist within. If there has been anything that I've been about since I've been here, it's been about getting at the presupps of the open view. The problem is that, because some of the assumptions are so intuitive, many OV people don't articulate them...AND PEOPLE DON'T MISS IT because it's so intuitive. Meanwhile, because to people who do this, Calvinism seems so COUNTERINTUITIVE, thus necessitating much more of an explanation for itself, people want to say "there's too many assumptions being made" This is unfair. See what I mean?

Let's go from here. Thanks, Stark

Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 1/22/2002 1:41 PM (GMT -6)

Go for it Meph!

(The Al Glenn stuff was an interesting openner to me, but not "precious.")

I didn't know how much I missed you, Meph, until you came back and I've been reading your schrift!!!

PoW

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 3/20/2002 1:44 AM (GMT -6)

enchore...

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:09 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual