The doctrine of God

[email]

Classical theism, the reigning doctrine of God in Christendom, affirms that God is void of body, parts, passions, even compassion, wholly simple, wholly immutable, independent, immaterial, the supreme cause and never the effect. What creatures have, God does not. I challenge this doctrine, on four grounds.

First, I find it unbiblical. Now, in so saying, I realize the Bible is not a book on metaphysics. God's salvific revelation occurs in history, not nature. Nevertheless, I feel Scripture implies a metaphysic wholly other than that found in classical theism. Granted, many biblical passages speak of God as immutable. But wait a sec, many others do in fact speak of God as changing (e.g., Hosea 11:8, Amos 7:3, Jeremiah 18:8, Exodus 32:14). Indeed, the prophets function so as to alter the operations of YHWH's will. Malachi 3:5-7 is often taken to be an affirmation of a wholly immutable God ("I, the Lord, change not"). But this is followed up by saying, "Return to me, that I might return to you." Taken together, these passages mean, at least to me, that God enjoys a fixity of purpose, and in that fixity, does not vary. But rather than denying change, such fixity insists upon it. Hence, if we change in such-and-such a way, then God, too, will change in an appropriate manner. And thre biblical metaphors for God are all anthropomorphic in nature. God shares the creaturely characteristics of will ,memory, emotion, anger, disappointment, etc. Quarrel all you want with these metaphors, as but a mere concession to our feeble intellects. Still, the fact remains they mean God undergoes changing affective states analogous to pleasure and displeasure, in ourselves. If these metaphors do not fit the reality of God, then they are useless and should be dropped. The Incarnation, if it is at all revelatory of God, reveals his general MO with creation. God is incarnate throughout the entire universe, which functions as his body. And the biblical predication of God is genereally relative predication. It's hard to be a creator, without a creation; a king, without subjects, a father, without children; a lover, without someone to love.

Secondly, there is the matter of epistemology. Knowledge, I think, demands two things. First, we must generalize from the familiar to the unfamiliar. Secondly, knowledge, real knowledge, is empathy, a knowing from "within." Now, if there is one "within" I am most familiar with, it is human experience. So, I think that unless there is a genuine analogy, a true likeness, between ourselves all all the rest of reality, from the atom up to God, then we haven't got an inkling what is going on. Now, one major characteristic of human existence is that we are continually changing, evolving. The traditional notion of the "self" as something permanent is a myth. Rather the "self" is best thought of as a name for a society of perishing occasions. Moment to moment, we are different persons. No thinker thinks twice. God, then, I see as the most changeable that there is, the supreme effect as well as cause. And in so saying, I am not overlooking the fact that there is consistency in God. There is an absolute or abstract dimension to God. What God always does. God always seeks to maximize beauty, is always omniscient, empathic, loving. But there is also the matter of the relative nature of God, God in the concrete, God as continually changing. We must, however, be careful not to focus just on the common thread running through various occasions, overlooking their key differences. Well may God always seek to maximize beauty, but what is beautiful in one context or era may not be in another. Well be God always be omniscient; but as new things happen, God's knowledge is increased, if for no other reason than he has moved from knowing X as merely potential to knowing X as a definite, decided matter of fact. Another major characteristic of human existence is that we are social, relational beings that arise out of our relationships. Reality is like a spider's web; you tweek it here and it giggles there. God, then, as I just said, is the supreme effect as well as cause. As much as God creates the universe, the universe creates God. Thirdly, there is the matter of meaning, value, significance. If God is wholly immutable, as classical theism argues, then saint or sinner, it's all the same to him, who remains blissfully indifferent. If nothing can make any real difference in God, then his love and wisdom can make no difference in his decision-making process. But who can put any real faith in such a cold, dehumanizing God? And if God could be just as happy, whole, and complete, without a universe as with one, then why did he bother to create it, in the first place? How would we be anything other than meaningless and insignificant to him? And how could we think of God as loving? Love means, at a minimum, to derive part of the content of your being, from the loved objects. And how could God deliver us from the evil of evils, that the past fades? We acquire satisfactions, only to lose them. So, why bother to do anything, when it's all going to go up in smoke soon enough? If God is wholly immutable, he is, then, helpless to deliver us from this evil. On the other hand, if God is supreme effect, if we can pass our experiences over into God, then everything is of significance because everything is preserved and enjoyed in God's memory forever.

Thirdly, there is the matter of divine transcendence. Classical theism sought to affirm transcendence, but at the price of immanence. God, in Thomism, exists wholly outside of creation, wholly unrelated to anything going on. Hence, we are left with the tragic situation of a world that never really gets into the life of God, because he is not about to react to it, and a God who never really gets into the world, because he would then be affected, conditioned, by it. The universe, then, has meaning only in the negative sense of a kind of holding tank to be escaped from if we are to attain to what is of ultimate value. And Christianity becomes a static, world-negating religion. And then, is God truly transcendent? The classical model of God pictures God and the world as two wholly separate circles that do not intersect. The world of time, change, materiality, contrasted over and against the divine world of immaterial, changeless simplicity. Well then, what do we call the whole of reality, the whole shooting match? Meta-God? Because it seems God is but one limited aspect of some larger, more inclusive whole or reality that includes him and then some. Put another way, classical theism argued that no reality can stand over and against God, on an equal footing, so as to exclude him. But, ironically, that is exactly what calssical theism ended up doing: The whole world of materiality and change is, at best, an anti-God principle, the complete and total antithesis of God's own nature. I think a better solution is to say that God is the chief exemplification of all metaphysical principles. Loosely put, what holds for creatures also hold for God, but to the nth degree. And this huge quantitative difference makes for a qualitative one as well. Everything in the universe is a part of everything else, is incarnate throughout; but only to a very limited degree. We, for example, directly interact with little more than our own brain cells. In sharp contrast, God's body, the universe, is wholly internal to him. Hence, God enjoys an unsurpassably direct and immediate empathic response to any and all creaturely feeling. We are total strangers to sensitivity on this grand of a scale.

Fourthly and finally, there is the matter of what is sometimes called the "monopolar prejudice" of classical theism. Now, it sure seems to me that the church fathers, and many Christians today, set up checklists of seemingly contradictory divine attributers, such as being-becoming, cause-effect, and then go down the list, ascribing only one side to God, the side which squares best with certain Hellenic notions that the "really real" is wholly simple, immaterial, passionless, simple. To me, this is lopsided. Nothing real can be described by reference to only one side or pole, and each pole represents a virtue. If it is good to be independent and not deterred by others, it is also good to be deeply moved and affected by the feelings of others. I think that creation is God's own eternal evolution from unconsciousness into self-consiciouness and seslf-actualization, and I think we should rejoice in the fact we have a genuine significance in the life of God.

[m273p15c]

Classical theism, the reigning doctrine of God in Christendom, affirms that God is void of body, parts, passions, even compassion, wholly simple, wholly immutable, independent, immaterial, the supreme cause and never the effect. What creatures have, God does not.

I would agree with some aspects of this "classical theism" but disagree with others. Not that this is important, but what are you considering this source of "classical theism"? I am unaware of any reputable scholar that believes this way, and so I am curious as to the identity of the scholars, whom you selected as representative of "classical theism".

I believe no ultimate significance should be attached to any "classic authors"; rather, inspired authors (the apostles and prophets), who derive their authority from Christ, are the only authors that should be heeded (Hebrews 1:1-2; Ephesians 3:3-5; II Timothy 3:16-17; II Peter 1:16-21).

... Granted, many biblical passages speak of God as immutable. But wait a sec, many others do in fact speak of God as changing (e.g., Hosea 11:8, Amos 7:3, Jeremiah 18:8, Exodus 32:14). Indeed, the prophets function so as to alter the operations of YHWH's will. Malachi 3:5-7 is often taken to be an affirmation of a wholly immutable God ("I, the Lord, change not"). But this is followed up by saying, "Return to me, that I might return to you." Taken together, these passages mean, at least to me, that God enjoys a fixity of purpose, and in that fixity, does not vary. But rather than denying change, such fixity insists upon it. Hence, if we change in such-and-such a way, then God, too, will change in an appropriate manner.

I believe that I would agree with everything said here. God does not change. His mercy always seeks to redeem; His justice always seeks reward to the wicked and unrighteous; His righteousness always presents truth and disdains error and contradiction; His love always seeks His children, etc. God does not change in these characteristics; however, His specific actions in relation to us must necessarily change as we change. In every case that you cited, where God "relented", He did not change His treatment of the wicked or righteous; rather, the people with whom He was dealing changed from seeking wickedness to righteousness.

I think a good illustration is the revolution of the earth around the sun: We all know that the sun is stationary relative to our planet. It is our planet that daily rotates on its own axis, while annually revolving around the sun. However, no one denies that "the sun rises in the east and sets in the west". Many times in our own language, as well as the languages in which the Bible was written, people speak in terms relative to the position of the observer. When one repents, it appears to us that God "relents" of His judgment. But in reality, one has merely moved from the "darkness" to the "light". The Son has not changed the direction or magnitude of his light, but rather the earth has changed its position relative to the sun, yet we speak of the sun rising and setting, waxing and waning ... This illustration merely exemplifies a feature of human language, a feature which is often employed even in Scripture to describe the actions of God.

Following the first point, I see a significant, but subtle change in tenor: No Scriptures are used anywhere after the first two paragraphs. Moreover, the basis of "knowing" the remainding points is built upon a foundation that is supposed to exist within each man:

Secondly, there is the matter of epistemology. Knowledge, I think, demands two things. First, we must generalize from the familiar to the unfamiliar. Secondly, knowledge, real knowledge, is empathy, a knowing from "within." Now, if there is one "within" I am most familiar with, it is human experience. So, I think that unless there is a genuine analogy, a true likeness, between ourselves all all the rest of reality, from the atom up to God, then we haven't got an inkling what is going on.

At this point, I disagree with most everything that is said. Even if I agree with a few of the realized conclusions, I disagree with how they are reached, because I cannot accept the above stated premise.

The problem here is that God is not man (Hosea 11:9). Although God created man in His "own image" (Genesis 1:26-27), God still transcends man in so many ways. Therefore, it is impossible to deduce a true picture of God from our own "human experience". We cannot draw an analogy of the infinite using our finite resources.

"For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," says the LORD. "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts." (Isaiah 55:8-9)

God must reveal Himself and His character to us. Otherwise, if we can extrapolate our experiences to comprehend God, then He is no greater than us, which defies the very definition of "God". The only thing we can learn about God from observation is His eternal power, which puts Him far beyond anyting we can comprehend:

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. (Romans 1:20-21)

If we ignore revelation and proceed with "knowing" God entirely upon our own understanding, analogies, and extrapolation, then we will end up with a God defined and fashioned by us, which puts us only one notch above the pagans who fashioned gods out of wood and worshipped them (Isaiah 44:9-20; 46:1-13). In this case, we have merely used more sophisticated materials of creation - sophistry, words, ideas, and philosophy - but the origin is still the same - us!

Because of this fundamental premise, it is no surprise to see the above writer drawing conclusions like this:

As much as God creates the universe, the universe creates God. ... I think that creation is God's own eternal evolution from unconsciousness into self-consiciouness and seslf-actualization, and I think we should rejoice in the fact we have a genuine significance in the life of God.

Secondly, true epistemology can never be satisfied with "faith", because the "believer" does not "know" God, in the epistemological definition of "knowledge". Therefore, the remainder of the article, beginning with point #2, is at variance with Christianity, since it is based in faith:

For we walk by faith, not by sight. (II Corinthians 5:7)

This does not mean that there is no objective evidence and basis for faith in God, the Bible, or Jesus. It simply means that these things cannot be "proven" in the mathematical and epistemological meanings for "proof" and "know". There is no "test-tube" experiment that will reveal God, His character, Jesus, or God's will for us. Only on Judgment day will "faith become sight". Untill then, both atheist and believer "walk by faith", pursuing their antithetical religions.

Jeremiah's oft quoted observation seems an appropriate conclusion on this brief review of the preceding article:

O LORD, I know the way of man is not in himself; It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps. ( Jeremiah 10:23)

[Blair Reynolds]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
You asked who were the classical theists. They were the church fathers, the movers and shakers, Augustine, Aquinas, Anselm, Calvin, etc. Many Christians naively assume their faith is formed solely by reading Scripture and then ignore the fathers. Big mistake. Nobody comes to Scripture, with a blank mind; and the fathers have had enormous influence on us yet today. Influenced as they were by certain schools dof Hellenic thought, they demeaned the changing and the material as unworthy of God. Hence, The Westminster Confession of Faith says God is void of body, parts, passions, immutable. And before that, Aquinas came along and providerd a long "cannot-do" list for God, chief among which were experiencing any negative emotion, such as anger. And then when he does speak of God's love and mercy, he kills these, with a million qualifiers, arguing his love and mercy are with any passion, any empathy. And before he came along, St. Anselm asked how God could be compassionate if he were passionless; and he concluded God is without any compassion. Maybe God appears that way to us; but in his own nature, he's ice cold. And before Anselm came along, the Council of Chalcedon argued Christ consists of two separate, independent natures, the human and the divine. Only the human could suffer, for the divine or God part was impassible, meaning incapable of all feeling, most especially suffering. Indeed, the teachings of the fathers were not idle theology, but became the basis for many creeds and confessions. Many Christians today still hold with them, affirming the immutability and impassibility of God, which I feel are major biblical and theological mistakes.
What you get out of Scripture is a function of the model of reality you bring to it, consciouisly or unconsciously. And I feel It's my task as theologian to bring these models out in the open. Indeed, Scripture provides no formal doctrine of God, no real metaphysical writing, so it's all up to us. And isn't that what God gave us brains for?
The classical model of God is OK, if you believe the really real is essentially static and independent. However, such a model does not survive my reality testing and seems to collapse out dimensions from God, leaving us with a flat, extensionless, unidimensional God, who can't even know the joy of a warm handshake. In other words, stripping creaturely attributes from God does not make God transcendent, but puts him in a tight little box, where he's unable to do what we can. And this is a onesided idea of perfection. Given any two seemingly contradictory attributes, I think both are virtues and both are essential to describe anything real. For this reason, I speak of an absolute or abstract nature to God, what God always does, that's he or she is always empathic, etc. But there is also a relative nature, God as concrete, and as everchanging. God is all-knowing (absolute), but as new things happen, God's knowledge increases (relative). We have to include both in our descrition of God, not just one, as per claslsical theism.
Now, when I speak of an analogy between ourselves and God, I don't mean a blanket equation. We seek a beautiful relationship with God; and beauty demands both uniformity and diversity. So there's plenty of room to speak of God's great mystery and transcendence. As I indicated earlier, I speak of the unhjiverse as the bodsy of God, which does mark a striking parallel with us. However, God enjoys a direct, immediate emapthic response to all creaturely feeling in the universe, which,of course, we come nowhere near to.
Now, I must insist I do not see how we can have any knowledge of God unless such an analogy exists. If you strip God of all anthropomorphic attributers, what can you say affirmatevely about him? You certainly couldn't say he's loving; that's a creaturely attribute. You couldn't say he's conscious of us; that's also a creaturely attribute. True, Scripture says that GOd's thoughts are not our thoughts. And that's only to be expected, as God has a much broader perspective to work from. However, Scripture still attributes "thought" to God. And then either Scripture is talking but figures of speech we should drop, or we must assume God has mental processes analogous to thought, in ourselves. And, in the end, if you hold that human concepts do not apply to God, th en you end up contradicting yourself, as you could easily argue it's just a human concept, a product of our thinking, that human concepts do not apply to God.

[m273p15c]

Thank you for your points of clarification. Although I better appreciate your ideas and position, and am even somewhat more sympathetic to it, I still disagree with some of the fundamental premises.

You asked who were the classical theists. They were the church fathers, the movers and shakers, Augustine, Aquinas, Anselm, Calvin, etc. Many Christians naively assume their faith is formed solely by reading Scripture and then ignore the fathers. Big mistake. Nobody comes to Scripture, with a blank mind; and the fathers have had enormous influence on us yet today.

This does complicate things, because originally you were responding to a 3rd party, which has no direct representation in either of us. Although many consider these "church fathers", I place no value in their thoughts. They are nothing to me, in terms of authority. In fact, I would strongly disagree with many of these men. Augustine's doctrine (and Calvin's) are strongly refuted elsewhere on this web-site:

http://www.insearchoftruth.org/articles/calvinism.html

The fact that these men believed any teaching automatically reduces that idea's credibility, in my esteem. I would have to work harder to accept something they proposed, just because they proposed it. I have that much grievance with their Persian based theology.

Moreover, people do exist who try to come to God and His Word with a "blank slate". Everybody comes with baggage, but many people willingly give up that baggage when they realize it conflicts with God's Word - at least that is their primary goal and aim - to serve the true God. I would classify myself as a person trying to do what you said is a "big mistake". I am ignoring the "fathers" simply because they were uninspired. Only the apostles and prophets are of interest to me, because their recorded words are God's Word (I Corinthians 2:1-16; Ephesians 3:3-5; II Timothy 3:16-17).

The influence of the other men you mentioned is generally foretold in Scripture, and it is not referenced in a positive light (Acts 20:28-30; II Thessalonians 2:1-12; I Timothy 4:1-3; II Timothy 3:1-9; 4:1-5; II Peter 2:1-3:18). By the close of the first century, Jude and John recorded that such influential false teachers were already among the brethren to pull them away from the revealed will of God (I John 4:1; Jude 1:3-4). I pay attention to these "fathers" only to avoid repeating their mistakes.

One may ask, "How can you tell what is the basis of a person's conviction?" Look at who they are quoting. If a man goes to Calvin, Aquinas, Tertullius, et al to justify his point, then you know upon what he stands (other men). If a man quotes nothing, then you know where he stands (upon himself). If a man quotes Scripture, then you know at least where he is attempting to stand (upon God).

Influenced as they were by certain schools dof Hellenic thought, they demeaned the changing and the material as unworthy of God. Hence, The Westminster Confession of Faith says God is void of body, parts, passions, immutable.

Ok, so these guys got something right:

Now as they said these things, Jesus Himself stood in the midst of them, and said to them, "Peace to you."

But they were terrified and frightened, and supposed they had seen a spirit. And He said to them, "Why are you troubled? And why do doubts arise in your hearts? Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have."

When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet. But while they still did not believe for joy, and marveled, He said to them, "Have you any food here?"

So they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish and some honeycomb. And He took it and ate in their presence. (Luke 24:36-43)

Not only is this an excellent proof text for the fleshly resurrection of the Christ, it also relegates the flesh to beings that are purely spiritual, such as the Heavenly Father.

"But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." (John 4:23-24)

Therefore, God is without fleshly attributes, such as body parts. In this much, I would agree with the third party, but little more.

And before that, Aquinas came along and providerd a long "cannot-do" list for God, chief among which were experiencing any negative emotion, such as anger. And then when he does speak of God's love and mercy, he kills these, with a million qualifiers, arguing his love and mercy are with any passion, any empathy. And before he came along, St. Anselm asked how God could be compassionate if he were passionless; and he concluded God is without any compassion. Maybe God appears that way to us; but in his own nature, he's ice cold. And before Anselm came along, the Council of Chalcedon argued Christ consists of two separate, independent natures, the human and the divine. Only the human could suffer, for the divine or God part was impassible, meaning incapable of all feeling, most especially suffering.

This paragraph may be necessary to hold Calvin's view of God intact, but it is not consistent with Scripture.

We are of God. He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. He who does not love does not know God, for God is love. In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him. (I John 4:6-16

John clearly states that God is love! Someone cannot rightly claim that this is just an "appearance", because John says that God's love was "manifested toward us". The word manifest means to make known, or reveal something that was hidden. One cannot reveal a hidden thing which does not exist! God's love existed before it "appeared" to us; otherwise, there was nothing to manifest.

Indeed, the teachings of the fathers were not idle theology, but became the basis for many creeds and confessions. Many Christians today still hold with them, affirming the immutability and impassibility of God, which I feel are major biblical and theological mistakes.

Combatting such human traditions and restoring the ancient order is one of the primary goals of this site. Unity will never be achieved upon doctrines of men. Only the perfect foundation of God's Word can sustain such a load.

What you get out of Scripture is a function of the model of reality you bring to it, consciouisly or unconsciously. And I feel It's my task as theologian to bring these models out in the open. Indeed, Scripture provides no formal doctrine of God, no real metaphysical writing, so it's all up to us. And isn't that what God gave us brains for?

Again, I am not so sure about that. True we all have spiritual baggage, or prejudices, which we must overcome to see the true light of God, but humility and a desparate love of truth will overcome such barriers. It's no surprise that these virtues are some of the essential characteristics for all who would enter the kingdom of God (Matthew 4:23-5:9; James 4:6-10)

As human beings, we all have a responsibility and desire to find ultimate fulfillment. I have come to believe that true happiness can only be found in God and a life lived for Him. Part of doing this is to help all our human brothers find similar fulfillment, even salvation. I hope you don't mind if I see this task of challenging people's religious thinking as a task belonging to more than just the theologians. Said another way, all Christians should be theologians in its strictest principle.

Finally, I believe the Bible does have some description about the "metaphysics" of God. However, it is not satifying to the carnal mind (I Corinthians 2:14-3:4), and it is therefore easily overlooked. God has displayed His core being essentially in Christ. The ultimate "metaphysics" of God is revealed in the life and teachings of Christ.

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him."

Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us."

Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, 'Show us the Father'?" (John 14:6-9)

The ultimate nature of God is displayed not in the raw power that created the universe, nor is it manifested in observing His eternal nature. His true "metaphysics" is revealed in the character of Christ. God is love (I John 4:6-16), truth (Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:17-18; John 17:17), wisdom (Proverbs 8:1-32), mercy (Deuteronomy 4:31), justice (Isaiah 30:18), etc (Micah 6:6-8). These are the "metaphysics" of God, from which God cannot be separated.

Other characeristics of God are outlined in Scripture, including His eternal nature. This means that He exists outside of time. God transcends time, and I believe this is one significant barrier to our common understanding. More on this below...

The classical model of God is OK, if you believe the really real is essentially static and independent. However, such a model does not survive my reality testing and seems to collapse out dimensions from God, leaving us with a flat, extensionless, unidimensional God, who can't even know the joy of a warm handshake. In other words, stripping creaturely attributes from God does not make God transcendent, but puts him in a tight little box, where he's unable to do what we can. And this is a onesided idea of perfection.

Again, I think there are two fundamental problems here, which is well summed up by Jesus' response to the unanswerable question, posed to Him by the Sadduccees:

Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God." (Matthew 22:29)

The Bible is the only true source of knowledge, because it is the only message we have from God. All else is subject to speculation, opinion, and critique of men. Failure to know it in and out is a fundamental problem for any who would pose challenges or paradoxes about God. Secondly, God's power is beyond our comprehension. What seems an unsurmountable dillemma to us is nothing to God. For example, Jesus handled the ultimate religious scholars like they were children - because they were compared to Him. We should use our brains. God left plenty of example and precedence which teaches us to use our brain; however, Christians will ultimately be a people of faith (II Corinthians 5:7). At some point, we are out of our league, and we must recognize that.

The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law. (Deuteronomy 29:29)

Given any two seemingly contradictory attributes, I think both are virtues and both are essential to describe anything real. For this reason, I speak of an absolute or abstract nature to God, what God always does, that's he or she is always empathic, etc. But there is also a relative nature, God as concrete, and as everchanging. God is all-knowing (absolute), but as new things happen, God's knowledge increases (relative). We have to include both in our descrition of God, not just one, as per claslsical theism.

Again, I believe this illuminates another point of concern, although slightly less fundamental. Consequently, I will not yet discuss it here. It is essential that we first resolve the fundamental differences; otherwise, there is no point in attempting to reconcile the points built upon those contrary foundations.

Now, when I speak of an analogy between ourselves and God, I don't mean a blanket equation. ... Now, I must insist I do not see how we can have any knowledge of God unless such an analogy exists. If you strip God of all anthropomorphic attributers, what can you say affirmatevely about him? You certainly couldn't say he's loving; that's a creaturely attribute. You couldn't say he's conscious of us; that's also a creaturely attribute. True, Scripture says that GOd's thoughts are not our thoughts. And that's only to be expected, as God has a much broader perspective to work from. However, Scripture still attributes "thought" to God. And then either Scripture is talking but figures of speech we should drop, or we must assume God has mental processes analogous to thought, in ourselves. And, in the end, if you hold that human concepts do not apply to God, th en you end up contradicting yourself, as you could easily argue it's just a human concept, a product of our thinking, that human concepts do not apply to God.

I believe we are discussing two different topics, but yet there lies a fundamental, if not the fundamental point of difference within this paragraph.

That Scriptures use anthramorphisms (figures of speech employing human members to relate to unhuman things - for example, "the hand of God" - God does not really have a fleshly hand) cannot be denied. "The finger of God", "the hand of God", "the arm of God" - all these refer to fleshly, human body parts; but yet, God clearly does not have such parts (Luke 24:36-43). These are figures of speech used to describe, or relate difficult to comprehend attributes of God. I readily agree these "analogies" are useful in explaining God to mortals, but I do not think they are necessary. However, I do not categorize "love", "compassion", and "anger" as anthromorphisms, since I believe the Scriptures reveal these to be intrinsic characeristics of God. (Does that sound like I have been influenced by the "church fathers"? )

My fundamental concern and advocation is not that we abandon all such analogies between us and God, neither is it the release of all reason, nor is it the closing of our minds. My belief is this:

Fundamentally, God, because of His infiite nature, is instrinsically unknowable, unless He reveals Himself. We cannot discover nor deduce God on our own. He is too different from us (Numbers 23:18; I Peter 1:15-25). However, this difference is not primarily one of God's creation; rather, our sins have separated us from God, making it impossible to see Him clearly on our own (Isaiah 59:2). Sin is a rejection of truth, and therefore, any sin must corrupt and twist the purity of one's reasoning to rationalize disobedience. Even if God originally bestowed each man with such ability, we surely gave it up when we commit sin, and each sin drives us further from true sanity (Romans 1:20-28)

His eternal power is revealed in the universe (Romans 1:18-20), His love and character is revealed in His Son (Hebrews 1:1-2; John 3:16), and His will for us is revealed in Scripture (II Timothy 3:16-17; Ephesians 3:3-5). Outside of these foundations, all else is an attempt to stack up enough finite things to measure the height of the infinite (Isaiah 55:8-9).

Is there any hope that we may come to unity?

[Blair Reynolds]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
I do not share your view of inspiration. I think it's pretty arbitrary and prejudicial to point to one group and say they're all inspired and then these others aren't and so should be dismissed, and how convenient it is when the "inspired" ones are all on your side. And when it comes to the fathers, you're a little off from tradition, which claimed they were in fact inspired. Clavin's Institutes were considered sacred in Geneva, for example. On my end of it, I consider everything and everyone inspsired. I believe each momentary self, each momentary unity of experience, must begin with an initial aim of God for what it's to become. So, I think God is a fundamental datum in all experience, and not just someone who talked to people way back when. And, getting back to the church fathers, while I challenge much of what they said, there's alot they said that I accept and you do, too. After all, they were real genuises. For example, your view of sola Scriptura is a Reformation interpretation of the Bible.
Let's look at it another way: Who wrote the Bible? People did. Who decided what's canon and what's not? People did. God did not drop it down on our heads, on a sliver platter. If you don't trust the decisions of people, how can you trust the current Bible? The fact that a human being thought up something says nothing at all about the validity of the thought. People can think up good ideas, too. So, the fact someone is going on extra-biblical sources or material does not automatically mean he or she is wrong. Certainly, we believe in alot of things that aren't in the Bible. You believe in electricity, don't you?
Now, while I hold there's divine inspiration in everything, I don't hold that anything is inerrant; so there's always room for questioning. Theology is always dialogue.
Do I think you are following the church fathers? Yes, some of your material suggsests you are deeply into classical theism. I think you have projected a spirit/matter dualism back into Scripture, so that God emerges as a wholly immaterial being. I know that to be a 180 from Scripture, since it views as a psychosomatic unity, soul is a dimension of blood, not something extensionless tied down at the pineal gland. Scripture does attribute body parts to God and I think these reflect their very real experience of encountering a genuine physical dimension to God. God may have fleshy arms because he works through ours which are part of him. Or, there could be other physical dimensions to God that function like a human arm. You say you agree with the love and mercy of God, but that these aren't anthropomorphic. Well, in a way, that's what the classical theists did. God is loving, but it's not like human love, because it's minus any real degree of affection or empathy. Well then, why call it love? Or if you are assuming that "love" is the right term, that there is an analogy with our common experience, then how can you leave God separate from us? When we truly love something or someone, we fuse with it; the lover and the loved object become truly one. And, in addition, to love is to be deeply moved and affected by the loved object. So, how can you leave God static and aloof? Or are you? I mean, I want to make sure I'm giving you a fair hearing here. When I think of God as loving, I think of God's all-inclusiveness, whereby we are all ontologically part of God's being; and then the "carnal" or the "fleshy" is divine.
Now, I'm not sure we are going to agree; but I have no problem with that. The purpose of theology isn't to have winners or make converts; the purpose is forboth sides to sharpen up each other.

[Blair Reynolds]

P.S. I think we need to get back on track. My original e-mail concerned God's relationship to change, not how to view the authority of church fathers, or other issues we've gotten into. These are purely side issues. Right now, I'm not sure I know where you stand and would appreciate it if you would fill me in more on how you see God in his own nature.

[m273p15c]

I think it's pretty arbitrary and prejudicial to point to one group and say they're all inspired and then these others aren't and so should be dismissed, and how convenient it is when the "inspired" ones are all on your side. ...

I know this persistent thread was not the point of your original post; however, it truly is the key to our discussion. Please allow me to explain, and then I will leave it alone:

If inerrant, divinie inspiration exists then its authority cannot be questioned without questioning its inspiration or God's character. Therefore, if it exists, reason dictates that we give exclusive heed to it. However, if you are correct, if there is no true divine, inerrant inspiration, then subjectivity and relativism reign supreme. In such a case, all discussion is both vain and academic, because each man becomes a standard to himself, and he will ultimately do what is right in his own eyes. Incidentally, history shows that large scale ignorance has a similar effect (Judges 17:6; Isaiah 62:2).

If you are right, then we are wasting our time. Let us eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die! However, if God has revealed Himself, then we cannot afford to dismiss it.

As long as we stand on two opposite foundations, we will never come to unity. Only strife awaits further efforts to pursuade. Therefore, if you wish to discuss this point further, then please feel free to start a new thread on the veracity and inspiration of Scripture under the "Evidences and Apologetics" category. I believe it is the ultimate point, because man's salvation hinges on its balance.

And when it comes to the fathers, you're a little off from tradition, which claimed they were in fact inspired. Clavin's Institutes were considered sacred in Geneva, for example. On my end of it, I consider everything and everyone inspsired.

Think of this as a seed for the new thread.

Jesus defied all tradition when He arrived. That is part of the reason his own flesh and blood was so slow to receive Him. He did not fit their definition of a Messiah or a king. In fact, immediately prior to His ascension, His closest disciples, the apostles, still did not really get the point of His coming. They were still looking for an earthly kingdom (Acts 1:1-8). However, Jesus fulfilled the Scriptures perfectly.

If the Jews had spent a little more time studying Scripture instead of human traditions and accepted scholars, they might not have overlooked their divine Creator when He stood right in front of their face.

I believe each momentary self, each momentary unity of experience, must begin with an initial aim of God for what it's to become. So, I think God is a fundamental datum in all experience, and not just someone who talked to people way back when. And, getting back to the church fathers, while I challenge much of what they said, there's alot they said that I accept and you do, too. After all, they were real genuises. For example, your view of sola Scriptura is a Reformation interpretation of the Bible.

This gets back to a previous accusation that the acceptance of Scripture was arbitrary. Why do you believe your premise as stated in the first sentence of the above paragraph? I believe in the inspiration of Scriptures, not because it makes sense to me, but because the evidence demands such a conclusion. (Do you want to discuss this point? ) The tenets of Scripture I must accept on faith; otherwise, I am truly guilty of your accusation - Picking texts that agree with me, instead of agreeing with inspired texts. It is not fair to assume that faith in Scripture preceded the analysis of the evidence. My point is not to defend my personal self, but to defend the position that faith in the Bible can be and should be sustained in evidence. Please do not dismiss them so quickly, especially without cause...

Let's look at it another way: Who wrote the Bible? People did. Who decided what's canon and what's not? People did. God did not drop it down on our heads, on a sliver platter. If you don't trust the decisions of people, how can you trust the current Bible?

The above statement further evidences the seriousness and profoundness of our disagreement. God wrote the Bible (II Peter 1:16-21; II Timothy 3:16-17; I Corinthians 2:1-16). God decided what was canon (Hebrews 2:1-4; Mark 16:15-20; Acts 1:1-3). Admittedly, I do lift up the external verification of uninspired historians, even pagan historians, who confirmed the power and existence of the miraculous signs, but the integrity of the text, its internal claims, and other Sola Scriptura methods can be used to validate its source. The Nicene Council only recognized what had generally been accepted and proven hundreds of years preceding. The Canon was only called into doubt when people did not accept what was written and needed to either remove or insert words to maintain their prejudiced positions (Gnostics, Calvinists, etc.).

The fact that a human being thought up something says nothing at all about the validity of the thought. People can think up good ideas, too. So, the fact someone is going on extra-biblical sources or material does not automatically mean he or she is wrong. Certainly, we believe in alot of things that aren't in the Bible. You believe in electricity, don't you?

Agreed. However, you must sympathize with my suspicion for anything uttered by people such as Calvin, who believed in a completely different god. He wrote several true things, but you know what they say, "Even a blind man finds a dime every now and then."

Again, my concern is not the possibility of Calvin or Augustine penning truth. My concern is ultimate reliability. When push comes to shove, and Calvin comes into conflict with Paul, who will you accept? And why? Again, this is really the point of a side thread, but it so hard to avoid...

Now, while I hold there's divine inspiration in everything, I don't hold that anything is inerrant; so there's always room for questioning. Theology is always dialogue.

Why? Does the evidence support this claim? What is the basis of this statement?

I think you have projected a spirit/matter dualism back into Scripture, so that God emerges as a wholly immaterial being. I know that to be a 180 from Scripture, since it views as a psychosomatic unity, soul is a dimension of blood, not something extensionless tied down at the pineal gland. Scripture does attribute body parts to God and I think these reflect their very real experience of encountering a genuine physical dimension to God.

What Scriptures would you use to support this? And how would you reconcile this conclusion with Luke 24:36-43 and other passages raised in the last post?

You say you agree with the love and mercy of God, but that these aren't anthropomorphic. Well, in a way, that's what the classical theists did. God is loving, but it's not like human love, because it's minus any real degree of affection or empathy.

I am not sure what to think about this. You will have to either define some terms, or pose some examples, but I believe Scriptures and definitions support God having both affection and empathy. Maybe the "classical theists" pushed for some division here, but I am not seeing it or the justification for it.

... then how can you leave God separate from us? When we truly love something or someone, we fuse with it; the lover and the loved object become truly one. And, in addition, to love is to be deeply moved and affected by the loved object. So, how can you leave God static and aloof? Or are you?

I believe you are mistaken with your "love fusion" model. Although people can become very intimate in love, they are not fused; otherwise, we would have no widows. Death reveals the grief in loss of relationship, but it also proves that life can survive it.

God does not need us. He is neither increased nor diminished by our salvation or condemnation. He does it for our sake (John 3:16) and for His "good pleasure" (Ephesians 1:1-3). He may want a relationship with us, but He does not need it.

Just because His love, mercy, and compassion make Him sensitive to us, we should not assume that He needs us, especially since He created us, and not the other way around...

...I think of God's all-inclusiveness, whereby we are all ontologically part of God's being; and then the "carnal" or the "fleshy" is divine.

Again, what is the basis for this claim? If you admit it is your own, but yet you reject the foundation upon which I disagree with your opinion, then how can we reconcile our conclusions? Why should we try? If relativism be true, then every opinion is equally valid. Actually, in such a case, every opinion would be equally invalid...

Now, I'm not sure we are going to agree; but I have no problem with that. The purpose of theology isn't to have winners or make converts; the purpose is forboth sides to sharpen up each other.

Admittedly, I am looking for converts. At least, I should be. That's why Jesus came to the earth, "to seek and save the lost" (Luke 19:10). How can anyone truly be His disciple and not seek the same? However, I do have an equal concern in all discussion, my own salvation. I am not inspired. Therefore, everything that I write and say is subject, and should be subject, to continual review. Consequently, you would be my friend if you would reveal my blindness to my own sins.

I value such discussions; however, I cannot accept any other position, unless it more closely adheres to Scripture or to the fundamental evidences. In other words, to pursuade me, you must either reveal my misuse of Scripture, or illuminate scale-tipping evidence to either discredit Scripture or elevate another standard.

Right now, I'm not sure I know where you stand and would appreciate it if you would fill me in more on how you see God in his own nature.

I don't believe I can immediately improve upon my previous statements without your further questions and comments. However, there was a related discussion posted here, which may be of interest:

about179.html

[Blair Reynolds]

First, let's get clear about how I view divine inspiration. I believe that God works from within, out. God is present in absolutely every entity in the universe. Indeed, God has to be omniresent, because everything is an expression of credativity, which can come only via God. I can fill you in more about this, but let's move on. What I'm saying is that God's own feelings are a concretely felt datum by all occasions as the initial aim for what they are to become. God's decisions are always consititutive of our being, his feelings always flow within us, because all entities are mutually sensitive to one another. So, yes, it's automaticv that we have to take God's aim into account. And that means it's automatic that we all reveal God. However, we do have free choice how we will take this aim into account. So, some things may be more revelatory of God than others, just as our bodies are sometimes more revelatory of ourselves than at others, when, for example, we are ill. Still, everyone and everything in creation is, to some real degree, a revelation of God.
The problem I have with religion is that all too often, religions become so imperialistic, assuming they and they alone have an exclusive monolopy on God's presence. This arrogance simply leads to warfare and prejudice. I think we need to humble up and realize that while nothing is a perfect revelation of God, no entity is without some divinity shinning through. Therefore, we need dialogue, not wrrfare to put down the reprobate, infidels, etc.
You're a little bit off about the canon. The earliest andsaything like a canon we can find comes from 110 AD, at the Council of Jamnia, and then the two sides could not agree, which is why there's a longer and shorter version of the OT. The NT probably wasn't canonized until Constantine; and even then, there were debates. Augustine, for example, would include what we call the Apocrypha. Bottom line, what's canon and what isn't is up to the arbitrary dictates of church councils. I mean, I don't know where you stand on the Aprcrypha, for example; but if you're, say, against it, can you really come w up with valid arguments to overcome those who are for it?
I don't follow you on relativism and subjectivity. My position on relativism is that nothing exists in isolation; everything arises out of its relationships. Relationships constitute the real internal constitutions of things. And this includes, most especially God, who is chief exemplification of relativity, i.e., the most related that there is. Furthermore, relativism does not mean we can go and do whatever. We are always in a relationship and therefore limited by the terms of that relationship. There is a "right" and a "wrong," because people can misunderstand their relationship. A common example would be some delusional individual who thinks he's related to some royal bloodline when he isn't. Also, there are absolutes, uniformities, that cut across all varying occasions. And I can say more about that if you want me to.
Regarding subjectivity, I think that the subject arises out of the world, not vice versa. Experience, especially emostive experience, is w how we are connected to one another. One doesn't see the puff of air make the eye blind; one feels it do so. Causality is purely affective in nature. More here, if you want it. I'm just winging it now, not sure how far you want me to go.
To say that God wants a universe but doesn't need it, seems to me to make God a house divided against itself, one part calling from a universe, one not. This has been done in theology, with theologians arguing cretion is found solely in the will of God, rather than his being. But isn't the will of God part of his being? How do you distinguish between the two?
If there's no need in God for a universe, then it could mean but little to him. And it puts us in the position of being like the excesses of an overly priviledged class, which has far more than it needs and therefore has no deep appreciation for what it has. When God creates the universe, I don't think it was at all like some wealthy aristocrat painting a picture simply to wile away the time. I think it's far more profound and deeper than that.
Indeed, if God does not need the universe, then that's because he's a nonrelational being. Well then, he surely isn't going to enter into a relationship with us, because that's completely 180 from his nature.
Turning to your comments on live, yes, I think the fusion model is correct, at least based on my experience and the experience of others. I submit that anyone who has been truly in love will tell you that love is about what you've been through with somebody, how you shared in their experiences, were affecteds or conditioned by them. I think it was Lee who said that when he lost Jackson, it was like losing his own right arm.

[m273p15c]

First, let's get clear about how I view divine inspiration. I believe that God works from within, out. ... God's decisions are always consititutive of our being, his feelings always flow within us, because all entities are mutually sensitive to one another. So, yes, it's automaticv that we have to take God's aim into account. And that means it's automatic that we all reveal God.

I believe we are at an impasse, given our current basis for authority. Fundamentally, I believe God is much bigger than me, and therefore, I need Him to reveal Himself to me, by whatever means He chooses. I believe human beings are fundamentally incapable of deriving, deciphering, or discovering God by themselves.

Based on evidence elsewhere provided and discussed in greater detail, I have concluded that the Bible is the inerrant and inspired Word of God. In it God reveals His will, character, and thoughts. Therefore, I have attempted to base my answers solely on this foundation, dismissing my personal opinions on the matters at hand.

However, given your past few responses, it seems that we do not currently share this same foundation for authority. It seems vain to attempt a unified understanding on some derived point, when we remain divided on the axioms used as the basis for drawing such conclusions. Therefore, I suggest that we cease the current discussion – At least, I have finished my part, given the current course.

If, for the sake of discussion, you choose to temporarily adopt a Biblical foundation, so we can discuss the character of God as revealed in the Bible, then I will be glad to continue this thread. However, if you wish to pursue more essential topics (from a logical standpoint), then I would encourage you to start a new thread on the veracity and inspiration of the Bible. I, as well as others, would be glad to discuss that with you there.

What would you like to do?

The problem I have with religion is that all too often, religions become so imperialistic, assuming they and they alone have an exclusive monolopy on God's presence. This arrogance simply leads to warfare and prejudice. I think we need to humble up and realize that while nothing is a perfect revelation of God, no entity is without some divinity shinning through. Therefore, we need dialogue, not wrrfare to put down the reprobate, infidels, etc.

I couldn't resist leaving a comment on the idea of "imperialistically enforced" religion: I agree with you on this point. God has shown Himself to be a rational God, who seeks to persuade and woo us (Isaiah 1:18; Hosea 2:14-16). He desires those who will voluntarily submit to Him (Psalm 110:1-3; Philemon 1:12-14; II Corinthians 8:12; 9:7). True religion begins in the heart (Psalm 51:1-17; Matthew 15:18-20; Proverbs 23:7; 27:19). Persuasion that is not focused in changing the heart is unGodlike and vain. As one wise man said, “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.”

Since God avoids force, choosing to reason and persuade, how can we use tactics that seek to convert through manipulation, charisma, intellectual snowing, or any other Philistine manner? However, if God has spoken, then who are we to hide the truth and refuse to persuade others? A blanket condemnation of all who attempt to uphold truth is merely a categorical denial of the existence of objective truth.

[Blair Reynolds]

For me, discussion does not at all mean that both sides have to agree or that one side can or should win over the other. Disagreement and conflict, negative as they may seem, are always golden opportunities for each side to sharpen up.
You say you strictly follow the Reformation principle of sola Scripture. Well, I have to be honest about something here: Sola Scriptura often proves to be a facade behind which all sorts of extra-biblical authorities are smuggled in. Certainly that happened with Calvin, who based this doctrine of God largely on the church fathers, especially Augustine, who got their doctrine of God largely from Hellenic philosophy and then tried to wedge it back into the pages of Scripture. I don't know of anyone who comes to Scripture, with a totally blank mind. What you get out of Scripture is always a function of what you bring to it. When people come to Scripture, they already have in mind a metaphysic, a model or models of what the rest of reality is like; and this serves as a keystone in their interpretative framework. I see it my task to get these implicit, extra-biblical assumptions out in the open and examine them. If you don't, then you end up with all these biblical-quote wars that go on and on. And the latter go nowhere, because neither side fesses up as to what their basic metaphysic is and how it has shaped their concept of biblical authority.
I don't see the Bible as a book of metaphysics or some work in systematic theology, and I believe the fathers were justified in looking to extra-biblical sources, as the questions they were posing came from a later ethos than Scripture. However, I certainly do see metaphysical implications in Scripture. And, having examined these, I think I'm alot closer to Scripture than is classical theism. And I've already indicated why and would be happy to discuss this further.
See, I'm not sure where you want to go. If you feel there is some biblical material you would like to point to, regarding my doctrine of God, then please feel free. If you just want to discuss Bible per se, then that pushes us over into biblical studies, which is a very huge area and might take us way off track from my original point, namely, that contingency and change must be included in the doctrine of God. However, I'd have to see where you want to go, first. Maybe you could send me a sample?

[m273p15c]

You say you strictly follow the Reformation principle of sola Scripture. Well, I have to be honest about something here: Sola Scriptura often proves to be a facade behind which all sorts of extra-biblical authorities are smuggled in. Certainly that happened with Calvin, who based this doctrine of God largely on the church fathers, especially Augustine, who got their doctrine of God largely from Hellenic philosophy and then tried to wedge it back into the pages of Scripture.

Certainly, this is a possible failure. But, just because some people go astray trying to do the right thing, we should not abandon the attempt to follow Scripture. I do not claim perfection in walking Sola Scriptura; however, that is my aim. If you enlighten me to any contradiction with Scripture, then you would be my friend, because I believe the evidence points to the Bible as being the only source of spiritual truth, regarding salvation, worship, and God's character.

I don't see the Bible as a book of metaphysics or some work in systematic theology, and I believe the fathers were justified in looking to extra-biblical sources, as the questions they were posing came from a later ethos than Scripture. However, I certainly do see metaphysical implications in Scripture. And, having examined these, I think I'm alot closer to Scripture than is classical theism. And I've already indicated why and would be happy to discuss this further.
See, I'm not sure where you want to go. If you feel there is some biblical material you would like to point to, regarding my doctrine of God, then please feel free. If you just want to discuss Bible per se, then that pushes us over into biblical studies, which is a very huge area and might take us way off track from my original point, namely, that contingency and change must be included in the doctrine of God. However, I'd have to see where you want to go, first. Maybe you could send me a sample?

I have already presented the best that I have. I would encourage you to look over what I have already posted, looking up each Scripture considering in its context. For the sake of brevity, I often reference a passage instead of quoting it, just to save space; consequently, you would have to look at many of the passages to grasp the full import the statements made. I am sorry for the inconvenience, but hopefully it will prove worth your while.

Assuming that you are willing to limit this discussion to points authorized by Scripture, I would be glad to answer any questions you may have regarding my previous statements.

[Journey]

Appreciate very much these written thoughts on the scriptures and surrounding things that affect one's thoughts on the scriptures. Very elegantly and accurately said. The fathers, Calvin, Luther, Augustine, Constantine, all had affects on the intrepretations of scriptures today as we know it. Some such as Constantine, and Augustine used their authority to further a cause, the question seems to be whether these and others were truely inspired. What portions of these fathers and others was more of a personal way of interpretating of the scriptures, rather than inspired or can it be proved that they were even inspired?

Thru tedious search, the thoughts do remain to follow the scriptures as all truth and authority. Looking to the apostles and things written in God's Word with all respect and truth.

Still learning, but seeking to establish bible truths.

Journey