I don't think there's a good analogy for the Biblical notion of a transcendent God...but lesser views are replete with creaturely analogies of how their god works...after all, god is basically trapped within the same cosmos.
Then you didn't understand how the analogy was applied.
I don't think there's a good analogy for the Biblical notion of a transcendent God
Only if you're the sort for whom ineffability swallows up all possible understanding of God. If we can understand anything about God, then chances are, we can make parallels with other things we understand.
And if scripture does it, why shouldn't we? I suppose I'm not sure that there are analogies in scripture regarding God, but the difference between them and metaphor is in my opinion a slight technicality.
but lesser views are replete with creaturely analogies
That doesn't make them lesser. That makes them normal grounds for intellectual activity.
Only if you're the sort for whom ineffability swallows up all possible understanding of God. If we can understand anything about God, then chances are, we can make parallels with other things we understand.
Please parallel the Trinity with something.
BTW, ineffability doesn't swallow up all possible knowledge of God. It undergirds it.
three leaf clover, triangle, 3 dimensional space, time, etc.
BTW, ineffability doesn't swallow up all possible knowledge of God. It undergirds it.
It doesn't have to, but in much of the Christian tradition (from the abstracting of God to deah to liberalism and mysticism).
Does it undergird it? I'd be interested in seeing how that is so.
Is there an ineffability to God? Of course, but that isn't that special. everything becomes ineffable. Subjective experience itself becomes ineffable (as is the case if you were to attempt to describe a color to a man born blind so he'd recognize it without reference to accidental associations (aka look up on a cloudless day and that's what blue looks like)).
three leaf clover, triangle, 3 dimensional space, time, etc.
There are four leaf clovers, right? I don't see how an eternally, mutually interdependent being Who relies on no other foundation other than Himself, even loosely resembles a clover, or space-time, let alone "etc".
Is there an ineffability to God? Of course, but that isn't that special. everything becomes ineffable.
That's a good summary of your worldview. God certainly doesn't think His ineffability is very meaningful...certainly nothing to cause us to worship Him (Rom 11:33-34). No cause for assurance from that, either (Isaiah 40:27-29).
When you think about it, we are every bit as much like God as He is (Gen 3:5).
I don't see how an eternally, mutually interdependent being Who relies on no other foundation other than Himself, even loosely resembles a clover, or space-time, let alone "etc".
they all exemplify unity amidst 3-ness. That's really all you need to make an analogy; some conceptual common ground.
That's a good summary of your worldview.
no, what is beyond language is only one issue in a world view... unless you allow ineffability to swallow everything up (even beyond the subject of God)... which is kind of a weird position.
That's a good summary of your worldview. God certainly doesn't think His ineffability is very meaningful...certainly nothing to cause us to worship Him (Rom 11:33-34). No cause for assurance from that, either (Isaiah 40:27-29).
those passages are about what is undisclosed and beyond us and do not indicate that this is so because what is beyond us is beyond words. That could be part of the reason, but this is not explained.
But just because something is beyond words does not make it beyond us, such as the example of colors for instance.
That would be highly relevant. A clover's threeness is not essential. If you pluck a leaf off of a clover, it continues.
they all exemplify unity amidst 3-ness. That's really all you need to make an analogy; some conceptual common ground.
That would be *superficial common ground*...as I just pointed out above. The clover relies on all kinds of things besides itself for survival, and can survive if reduced to one or two petals. There is no relationship between the leaves...you get accidental unity, but no trinity...at best, you simply have atomism.
no, what is beyond language is only one issue in a world view... unless you allow ineffability to swallow everything up (even beyond the subject of God)... which is kind of a weird position.
I haven't brought up language. I'm pointing out that open "theism's" god is trapped in the same universe as man. The God of the Bible is not bound by the temporal order as He created it and is self-sustaining...the very notion of self-sustaining has no parallel, either...yet it's incontrovertible to anyone affirming a Christian theistic worldview.
those passages are about what is undisclosed and beyond us and do not indicate that this is so because what is beyond us is beyond words.
While language is related, it is not what I was talking about. God's Word says: Have you not known? Have you not heard? The everlasting God, the LORD, The Creator of the ends of the earth,Neither faints nor is weary. His understanding is unsearchable.
Is it your contention that with the correct linguistic equipment we can search God's understanding? Is it still your belief that an inanimate, silent, dependent, impersonal clover is a parallel to the Trinity?
That would be highly relevant. A clover's threeness is not essential. If you pluck a leaf off of a clover, it continues.
it's an analogy. If everything about three leave cloves and God were exactly the same, it wouldn't make an analogy. it would make three leaf clover a synonym with God.
That would be *superficial common ground*..
not if your demonstrating that it isn't incoherent to speak of something as having the property of having 3 in 1.
Whether it's superficial is completely relative to the point of drawing the analogy.
There is no relationship between the leaves...you get accidental unity, but no trinity...at best, you simply have atomism.
the analogy isn't drawn for the detail of the necessity of the trinity.
I haven't brought up language.
you were interacting with my comments on ineffability.
I'm pointing out that open "theism's" god is trapped in the same universe as man.
so you were introducing a red herring? (and false one at that)
The God of the Bible is not bound by the temporal order as He created it and is self-sustaining.
but of course.
the very notion of self-sustaining has no parallel, either...yet it's incontrovertible to anyone affirming a Christian theistic worldview.
the very word is used outside of theology. As it is used outside of theology, it most certainly does have parallels with how it is used within theology, such as with a self sustaining nuclear reaction. The difference here is in degree. God's self sustaining nature is absolute. A self sustaining nuclear reaction is only self sustaining on one level in that it doesn't need to be continually bombarded by particles to continue to react, but it would still need a constant supply of nuclear materials to continue.
While language is related, it is not what I was talking about.
then your criticism wasn't relevant to what I said.
Is it your contention that with the correct linguistic equipment we can search God's understanding?
you mean in light of that non-absolute statement that doesn't cancel out the rest of scripture that tells us of God's ways? To the extent that God reveals himself using words, we can use those words. Is much about God beyond our understanding? Of course.
Is it still your belief that an inanimate, silent, dependent, impersonal clover is a parallel to the Trinity?
The inanimate silent dependent aspect of a clover is not where the parallels lie. I never implied it nor has the church who has made the connection. There's a difference between saying two things have parallels and two things are exactly the same.
Scripture compares God to a rock and your amazed that he should be compared to a clover!
it's an analogy. If everything about three leave cloves and God were exactly the same, it wouldn't make an analogy. it would make three leaf clover a synonym with God.
I agree that no analogy can be a 1 for 1...if they were, they wouldn't be analogies, they'd be "identica-logies". However, to have an analogy be meaningful, it ought to shed light on the relationship between the other subject.
you were interacting with my comments on ineffability.
My intent wasn't so much the inability to express fully God's character, for example, it was to underscore our inability to fully comprehend him. Given that, it follows that God cannot be expressed completely by language. That's my fault for not explaining what I meant...ineffability would not be the most appropriate word for what I was talking about. I still stand by what I said previously, but incomprehensibility is what I mean more specifically.
so you were introducing a red herring? (and false one at that)
That's not a red herring in the least. The initial post pointed out how Arminianism (also Open Theism) makes God co-pilot to Satan. I couldn't be more on topic by pointing out OT's god is confined to the temporal world.
As it is used outside of theology, it most certainly does have parallels with how it is used within theology, such as with a self sustaining nuclear reaction. The difference here is in degree. God's self sustaining nature is absolute. A self sustaining nuclear reaction is only self sustaining on one level in that it doesn't need to be continually bombarded by particles to continue to react, but it would still need a constant supply of nuclear materials to continue.
Theologically, the notion of being self-sustaining includes with that the notion that God is without a cause. A nuclear reaction is...well, a *reaction* to a cause. The analogy is as meaningful as an engine that runs forever as long as it has an endless supply of fuel.
Scripture compares God to a rock and your amazed that he should be compared to a clover!
The Bible is much better than you at making analogies.
However, to have an analogy be meaningful, it ought to shed light on the relationship between the other subject.
That's completely relative to how much light needs to be shed to a particular group or person.
My intent wasn't so much the inability to express fully God's character, for example, it was to underscore our inability to fully comprehend him.
Well, no one does that. I surely don't. still, it's not good to defend bad doctrines behind mystery and incomprehensibility. You can claim just about anything you want if you want to answer just any problem with a "well God's mysterious".
That's not a red herring in the least. The initial post pointed out how Arminianism (also Open Theism) makes God co-pilot to Satan. I couldn't be more on topic by pointing out OT's god is confined to the temporal world.
I don't see the connection. It's just one punch in the face at one theology on one set of grounds to another punch at another theological claim on a different set of grounds. I think the common ground that these two sets of criticisms have is that they are of views that you disagree with.
Theologically, the notion of being self-sustaining includes with that the notion that God is without a cause. A nuclear reaction is...well, a *reaction* to a cause. The analogy is as meaningful as an engine that runs forever as long as it has an endless supply of fuel.
So what if the parallel isn't thorough. we've been over this.
The Bible is much better than you at making analogies.
So you agree with me now that there are good analogies that can be made of the God who is transcendent! That's fine by me.
So you agree with me now that there are good analogies that can be made of the God who is transcendent! That's fine by me.
You're the king of equivocation. When a rock is used as an analogy of God, is it His transcendence that is being analogized?
When we speak of God's transcendence, we speak of incommunicable traits...things like Trinity, transcendence, autonomy...stuff like that.
Which is what I had in mind...not only in mind, but that's what I said. Let me reproduce what started us down this rabbit trail: "I don't think there's a good analogy for the Biblical notion of a transcendent God"
I don't see the connection. It's just one punch in the face at one theology on one set of grounds to another punch at another theological claim on a different set of grounds. I think the common ground that these two sets of criticisms have is that they are of views that you disagree with.
Both share the happy trait of placing God "in the plane", so to speak...you may not agree, but that's the connection. A clear one, at that.
That's completely relative to how much light needs to be shed to a particular group or person.
Here's an analogy for you: Getting to pertinent points with you can sometimes be like digging a hole with a waffle iron... Or It's like playing darts with without a bulls-eye...darts...and no hands...and we're not sure what playing darts is really.
You're the king of equivocation. When a rock is used as an analogy of God, is it His transcendence that is being analogized?
You're the king of red herrings. when I made an analogy about the Calvinistic conception of God's sovereignty, you said there were no good analogies for a transcendent God. I took it to mean that you were saying that since God is transcendent in your view, no analogies were appropriate. I didn't know you thought we were specifically talking about transcendence. (I wasn't, I was talking about sovereignty).
When we speak of God's transcendence, we speak of incommunicable traits...things like Trinity, transcendence, autonomy...stuff like that.
If they are incommunicable in the sense that they can't be communicated, then there isn't much sense in speaking of them at all. If they are incommunicable only in the sense that they are traits unique to God, that certainly doesn't mean that these traits don't have their analogous parallels to help us understand them as we have already seen with the trinity. Course the trinity isn't completely incommunicable as our social nature is intimately linked with interrelatedness of the trinity (and not just analogously for the sake of communicating a concept but as a matter of design as in the image of God) even if our communal nature is not a carbon copy of the trinity.
Both share the happy trait of placing God "in the plane", so to speak...you may not agree, but that's the connection. A clear one, at that.
it's a metaphor. No one puts God in a plane any more than omnipresence would imply... which is completely irrelevant to the metaphor. Your claim is simply at odds with the first fella who used it against the Arminians. He wasn't saying that God was in a plane in the Arminian view. He was saying that God was partnered with Satan in a subservient and inappropriate way.
Getting to pertinent points with you can sometimes be like digging a hole with a waffle iron...
yes, well, when you started digging that hole with the waffle iron, I merely suggested that the normal tools like the shovels we were using do fine.
FYI craig, hopefully this is old news in a good way by now, but I've heard that it would be good to pray for your family at this time. (and I know some specifics but I don't mention them here because I don't know if you deem it to private for this blog as opposed to face book (which I am not on).
Thank you for the kind words, Rob. Things have finally gotten better. From my youngest being in the hospital it went on to sicknesses with our other daughter, my wife, and also myself...and then my wife again.
On top of it all, I've been working and taking 15 credit hours at UT...it can be tiring, but God has been faithful.
His 'answer' is nothing more than mindless spin, bereft of any viable evidence whatsoever. Your own commentary is rife with falsehood as well, as this whole co-pilot nonsense isn't 'responding to an Arminian on the Arminian's terms' at all, as is readily apparent when reading Mr. Birch's post.
"God is Satan's co-pilot in an Arminian theodicy."
I challenge you to provide any substantial evidence for your ridiculous assertion.
J.C., I don't accept your challenge. Looking over those links I came away with the impression you have more invested in this emotionally than I do...and evidence/argument will only invest me with emotional frustration.
In my estimation, you don't understand the criticism Steve has laid out, further, the fact you find unfounded accusations re: sock-puppeting" as compelling evidence is just laughable. You may be right, but one would think you'd have evidence? If you don't provide evidence, some may infer you did the sock-puppeting and accused T-bloggers of doing it.
"In my estimation, you don't understand the criticism Steve has laid out...."
It's hard to make sense of nonsense. But go ahead if you think you can.
"...the fact you find unfounded accusations re: sock-puppeting" as compelling evidence is just laughable."
"Unfounded??" What are you talking about? I already laid out my evidence, one of the profiles I cited being a confirmed sockpuppet. You continue to employ falsehood in stating that I made accusations of sockpuppetry against them at all, as I made it a point specifically to not accuse Steve or any of his cohorts of being sockpuppets.
"I don't accept your challenge."
No surprises here. That which is illogical is often indefensible.
J.C., You come out of the gate blasting machine gun accusations of dishonesty.
Do I engage you, or ignore you?
Either way, I am betting it will be perceived as evidence of my dishonesty. When certain individuals say:
* Citing numerous examples of other people with writing styles similar to his (which Kangaroodort actually anticipated that Manata would do)
it only demonstrates said individual will find anything and everything to be evidence they're right!
I anticipated you would call me dishonest...unfortunately, I didn't write that down in my comment. Does that prove anything? Not really.
Sometimes people will underscore to superfluous nature of another's accusations rather than answer directly. It's not an admission of guilt.
As for your opinion of my level of honesty...well, if any other commenters would like to weigh in, they're welcome to. A number of them know me outside of blogging...we disagree, sometimes vigorously (just ask Rob R)...but I would be surprised if they described me as dishonest.
But then again, I didn't come out and say I'm not dishonest...therefore, I must be dishonest!
You see, J.C., I have to weigh the merits of someone's case before I will begin to engage them along with their commitment to interacting with pertinent information. Your first comment gave you 2 strikes immediately...your 2nd post gave you another 2...so I guess you swung so hard on the 3rd strike you went full circle again for a 4th.
Whether or not T-blogger Paul Manata used sock puppets is immaterial...juvenile, perhaps, but not particularly important.
How is it you find those gnats with the taste of camel in your mouth? You don't have to answer that...but if you do, it confirms everything I think about you...if you don't, it means you know I'm on your tail, so really...it just means I'm right.
"it only demonstrates said individual will find anything and everything to be evidence they're right!"
That doesn't follow.
"Sometimes people will underscore to superfluous nature of another's accusations rather than answer directly. It's not an admission of guilt."
Nor did I imply that it was, hence my lack of accusation.
"I anticipated you would call me dishonest..."
Read it again, I didn't say you were dishonest; but some of your statements were nonetheless false (e.g. that I 'accused' them, which is plainly not true).
"Your first comment gave you 2 strikes immediately"
And what would those be?
"Whether or not T-blogger Paul Manata used sock puppets is immaterial"
As far as discerning the issues, no, it isn't. As far as credibility of source, it very well relevant.
"How is it you find those gnats with the taste of camel in your mouth?"
"The author of that particular blog has no grasp of what Arminianism constitutes, fails to understand even fundamental logic, has a disconnect from reality, and willfully rejects foundational Christian principles by outright embracing intellectual dishonesty."
Of course, Thibodaux seems me the way a thief sees a policeman.
"His 'answer' is nothing more than mindless spin, bereft of any viable evidence whatsoever."
Thibodaux's dismissive remark is about mindless spin is, itself, mindlness spin.
Hopefully Thibodaux is still young enough to outgrow his play-acting. He's like a foppish character from a Victorian novel of manners. The arch sense of slighted honor against his august personage.
At this time there's no way to reach the real person behind all his make-up and consume and memorized lines.
As far as why your first statement is a non-sequitur, we weren't using Manata's attempts at averting suspicion as evidence of our case. Read what's on the tin, I simply thought it was humorous (just as I did numerous other statements), as did my friend who anticipated the move. How you infer that I was using this as evidence of my case is beyond me I'm afraid. Was this perceived attempt at citing faulty evidence one of the 'strikes' to which you refer?
25 comments:
No. According to the author of that blog who lacks an understanding of the soveriegnty of God in an Arminian perspective.
Nope. The author of the blog is responding to an Arminian on the Arminian's terms.
God is Satan's co-pilot in an Arminian theodicy. That would make a great bumper sticker...I may come up with something via cafe press ;)
yes, lets get it right. Calvinism is true where satan is God's copilot, or at least head stewardess.
Sorry, Rob...in Calvinism, God isn't a pilot.
I don't think there's a good analogy for the Biblical notion of a transcendent God...but lesser views are replete with creaturely analogies of how their god works...after all, god is basically trapped within the same cosmos.
Sorry, Rob...in Calvinism, God isn't a pilot.
Then you didn't understand how the analogy was applied.
I don't think there's a good analogy for the Biblical notion of a transcendent God
Only if you're the sort for whom ineffability swallows up all possible understanding of God. If we can understand anything about God, then chances are, we can make parallels with other things we understand.
And if scripture does it, why shouldn't we? I suppose I'm not sure that there are analogies in scripture regarding God, but the difference between them and metaphor is in my opinion a slight technicality.
but lesser views are replete with creaturely analogies
That doesn't make them lesser. That makes them normal grounds for intellectual activity.
Only if you're the sort for whom ineffability swallows up all possible understanding of God. If we can understand anything about God, then chances are, we can make parallels with other things we understand.
Please parallel the Trinity with something.
BTW, ineffability doesn't swallow up all possible knowledge of God. It undergirds it.
Please parallel the Trinity with something.
three leaf clover, triangle, 3 dimensional space, time, etc.
BTW, ineffability doesn't swallow up all possible knowledge of God. It undergirds it.
It doesn't have to, but in much of the Christian tradition (from the abstracting of God to deah to liberalism and mysticism).
Does it undergird it? I'd be interested in seeing how that is so.
Is there an ineffability to God? Of course, but that isn't that special. everything becomes ineffable. Subjective experience itself becomes ineffable (as is the case if you were to attempt to describe a color to a man born blind so he'd recognize it without reference to accidental associations (aka look up on a cloudless day and that's what blue looks like)).
three leaf clover, triangle, 3 dimensional space, time, etc.
There are four leaf clovers, right? I don't see how an eternally, mutually interdependent being Who relies on no other foundation other than Himself, even loosely resembles a clover, or space-time, let alone "etc".
Is there an ineffability to God? Of course, but that isn't that special. everything becomes ineffable.
That's a good summary of your worldview. God certainly doesn't think His ineffability is very meaningful...certainly nothing to cause us to worship Him (Rom 11:33-34). No cause for assurance from that, either (Isaiah 40:27-29).
When you think about it, we are every bit as much like God as He is (Gen 3:5).
There are four leaf clovers, right?
yes, they aren't relevant.
I don't see how an eternally, mutually interdependent being Who relies on no other foundation other than Himself, even loosely resembles a clover, or space-time, let alone "etc".
they all exemplify unity amidst 3-ness. That's really all you need to make an analogy; some conceptual common ground.
That's a good summary of your worldview.
no, what is beyond language is only one issue in a world view... unless you allow ineffability to swallow everything up (even beyond the subject of God)... which is kind of a weird position.
That's a good summary of your worldview. God certainly doesn't think His ineffability is very meaningful...certainly nothing to cause us to worship Him (Rom 11:33-34). No cause for assurance from that, either (Isaiah 40:27-29).
those passages are about what is undisclosed and beyond us and do not indicate that this is so because what is beyond us is beyond words. That could be part of the reason, but this is not explained.
But just because something is beyond words does not make it beyond us, such as the example of colors for instance.
yes, they aren't relevant.
That would be highly relevant. A clover's threeness is not essential. If you pluck a leaf off of a clover, it continues.
they all exemplify unity amidst 3-ness. That's really all you need to make an analogy; some conceptual common ground.
That would be *superficial common ground*...as I just pointed out above. The clover relies on all kinds of things besides itself for survival, and can survive if reduced to one or two petals. There is no relationship between the leaves...you get accidental unity, but no trinity...at best, you simply have atomism.
no, what is beyond language is only one issue in a world view... unless you allow ineffability to swallow everything up (even beyond the subject of God)... which is kind of a weird position.
I haven't brought up language. I'm pointing out that open "theism's" god is trapped in the same universe as man. The God of the Bible is not bound by the temporal order as He created it and is self-sustaining...the very notion of self-sustaining has no parallel, either...yet it's incontrovertible to anyone affirming a Christian theistic worldview.
those passages are about what is undisclosed and beyond us and do not indicate that this is so because what is beyond us is beyond words.
While language is related, it is not what I was talking about. God's Word says:
Have you not known?
Have you not heard? The everlasting God, the LORD, The Creator of the ends of the earth,Neither faints nor is weary. His understanding is unsearchable.
Is it your contention that with the correct linguistic equipment we can search God's understanding? Is it still your belief that an inanimate, silent, dependent, impersonal clover is a parallel to the Trinity?
That would be highly relevant. A clover's threeness is not essential. If you pluck a leaf off of a clover, it continues.
it's an analogy. If everything about three leave cloves and God were exactly the same, it wouldn't make an analogy. it would make three leaf clover a synonym with God.
That would be *superficial common ground*..
not if your demonstrating that it isn't incoherent to speak of something as having the property of having 3 in 1.
Whether it's superficial is completely relative to the point of drawing the analogy.
There is no relationship between the leaves...you get accidental unity, but no trinity...at best, you simply have atomism.
the analogy isn't drawn for the detail of the necessity of the trinity.
I haven't brought up language.
you were interacting with my comments on ineffability.
I'm pointing out that open "theism's" god is trapped in the same universe as man.
so you were introducing a red herring? (and false one at that)
The God of the Bible is not bound by the temporal order as He created it and is self-sustaining.
but of course.
the very notion of self-sustaining has no parallel, either...yet it's incontrovertible to anyone affirming a Christian theistic worldview.
the very word is used outside of theology. As it is used outside of theology, it most certainly does have parallels with how it is used within theology, such as with a self sustaining nuclear reaction. The difference here is in degree. God's self sustaining nature is absolute. A self sustaining nuclear reaction is only self sustaining on one level in that it doesn't need to be continually bombarded by particles to continue to react, but it would still need a constant supply of nuclear materials to continue.
While language is related, it is not what I was talking about.
then your criticism wasn't relevant to what I said.
Is it your contention that with the correct linguistic equipment we can search God's understanding?
you mean in light of that non-absolute statement that doesn't cancel out the rest of scripture that tells us of God's ways? To the extent that God reveals himself using words, we can use those words. Is much about God beyond our understanding? Of course.
Is it still your belief that an inanimate, silent, dependent, impersonal clover is a parallel to the Trinity?
The inanimate silent dependent aspect of a clover is not where the parallels lie. I never implied it nor has the church who has made the connection. There's a difference between saying two things have parallels and two things are exactly the same.
Scripture compares God to a rock and your amazed that he should be compared to a clover!
it's an analogy. If everything about three leave cloves and God were exactly the same, it wouldn't make an analogy. it would make three leaf clover a synonym with God.
I agree that no analogy can be a 1 for 1...if they were, they wouldn't be analogies, they'd be "identica-logies". However, to have an analogy be meaningful, it ought to shed light on the relationship between the other subject.
you were interacting with my comments on ineffability.
My intent wasn't so much the inability to express fully God's character, for example, it was to underscore our inability to fully comprehend him. Given that, it follows that God cannot be expressed completely by language. That's my fault for not explaining what I meant...ineffability would not be the most appropriate word for what I was talking about. I still stand by what I said previously, but incomprehensibility is what I mean more specifically.
so you were introducing a red herring? (and false one at that)
That's not a red herring in the least. The initial post pointed out how Arminianism (also Open Theism) makes God co-pilot to Satan. I couldn't be more on topic by pointing out OT's god is confined to the temporal world.
As it is used outside of theology, it most certainly does have parallels with how it is used within theology, such as with a self sustaining nuclear reaction. The difference here is in degree. God's self sustaining nature is absolute. A self sustaining nuclear reaction is only self sustaining on one level in that it doesn't need to be continually bombarded by particles to continue to react, but it would still need a constant supply of nuclear materials to continue.
Theologically, the notion of being self-sustaining includes with that the notion that God is without a cause. A nuclear reaction is...well, a *reaction* to a cause. The analogy is as meaningful as an engine that runs forever as long as it has an endless supply of fuel.
Scripture compares God to a rock and your amazed that he should be compared to a clover!
The Bible is much better than you at making analogies.
However, to have an analogy be meaningful, it ought to shed light on the relationship between the other subject.
That's completely relative to how much light needs to be shed to a particular group or person.
My intent wasn't so much the inability to express fully God's character, for example, it was to underscore our inability to fully comprehend him.
Well, no one does that. I surely don't. still, it's not good to defend bad doctrines behind mystery and incomprehensibility. You can claim just about anything you want if you want to answer just any problem with a "well God's mysterious".
That's not a red herring in the least. The initial post pointed out how Arminianism (also Open Theism) makes God co-pilot to Satan. I couldn't be more on topic by pointing out OT's god is confined to the temporal world.
I don't see the connection. It's just one punch in the face at one theology on one set of grounds to another punch at another theological claim on a different set of grounds. I think the common ground that these two sets of criticisms have is that they are of views that you disagree with.
Theologically, the notion of being self-sustaining includes with that the notion that God is without a cause. A nuclear reaction is...well, a *reaction* to a cause. The analogy is as meaningful as an engine that runs forever as long as it has an endless supply of fuel.
So what if the parallel isn't thorough. we've been over this.
The Bible is much better than you at making analogies.
So you agree with me now that there are good analogies that can be made of the God who is transcendent! That's fine by me.
So you agree with me now that there are good analogies that can be made of the God who is transcendent! That's fine by me.
You're the king of equivocation. When a rock is used as an analogy of God, is it His transcendence that is being analogized?
When we speak of God's transcendence, we speak of incommunicable traits...things like Trinity, transcendence, autonomy...stuff like that.
Which is what I had in mind...not only in mind, but that's what I said. Let me reproduce what started us down this rabbit trail:
"I don't think there's a good analogy for the Biblical notion of a transcendent God"
I don't see the connection. It's just one punch in the face at one theology on one set of grounds to another punch at another theological claim on a different set of grounds. I think the common ground that these two sets of criticisms have is that they are of views that you disagree with.
Both share the happy trait of placing God "in the plane", so to speak...you may not agree, but that's the connection. A clear one, at that.
That's completely relative to how much light needs to be shed to a particular group or person.
Here's an analogy for you:
Getting to pertinent points with you can sometimes be like digging a hole with a waffle iron...
Or
It's like playing darts with without a bulls-eye...darts...and no hands...and we're not sure what playing darts is really.
You're the king of equivocation. When a rock is used as an analogy of God, is it His transcendence that is being analogized?
You're the king of red herrings. when I made an analogy about the Calvinistic conception of God's sovereignty, you said there were no good analogies for a transcendent God. I took it to mean that you were saying that since God is transcendent in your view, no analogies were appropriate. I didn't know you thought we were specifically talking about transcendence. (I wasn't, I was talking about sovereignty).
When we speak of God's transcendence, we speak of incommunicable traits...things like Trinity, transcendence, autonomy...stuff like that.
If they are incommunicable in the sense that they can't be communicated, then there isn't much sense in speaking of them at all. If they are incommunicable only in the sense that they are traits unique to God, that certainly doesn't mean that these traits don't have their analogous parallels to help us understand them as we have already seen with the trinity. Course the trinity isn't completely incommunicable as our social nature is intimately linked with interrelatedness of the trinity (and not just analogously for the sake of communicating a concept but as a matter of design as in the image of God) even if our communal nature is not a carbon copy of the trinity.
Both share the happy trait of placing God "in the plane", so to speak...you may not agree, but that's the connection. A clear one, at that.
it's a metaphor. No one puts God in a plane any more than omnipresence would imply... which is completely irrelevant to the metaphor. Your claim is simply at odds with the first fella who used it against the Arminians. He wasn't saying that God was in a plane in the Arminian view. He was saying that God was partnered with Satan in a subservient and inappropriate way.
Getting to pertinent points with you can sometimes be like digging a hole with a waffle iron...
yes, well, when you started digging that hole with the waffle iron, I merely suggested that the normal tools like the shovels we were using do fine.
FYI craig, hopefully this is old news in a good way by now, but I've heard that it would be good to pray for your family at this time. (and I know some specifics but I don't mention them here because I don't know if you deem it to private for this blog as opposed to face book (which I am not on).
Thank you for the kind words, Rob. Things have finally gotten better. From my youngest being in the hospital it went on to sicknesses with our other daughter, my wife, and also myself...and then my wife again.
On top of it all, I've been working and taking 15 credit hours at UT...it can be tiring, but God has been faithful.
Craig,
"The author of the blog is responding to an Arminian on the Arminian's terms."
The author of that particular blog has no grasp of what Arminianism constitutes, fails to understand even fundamental logic, has a disconnect from reality, and willfully rejects foundational Christian principles by outright embracing intellectual dishonesty.
His 'answer' is nothing more than mindless spin, bereft of any viable evidence whatsoever. Your own commentary is rife with falsehood as well, as this whole co-pilot nonsense isn't 'responding to an Arminian on the Arminian's terms' at all, as is readily apparent when reading Mr. Birch's post.
"God is Satan's co-pilot in an Arminian theodicy."
I challenge you to provide any substantial evidence for your ridiculous assertion.
J.C.,
I don't accept your challenge. Looking over those links I came away with the impression you have more invested in this emotionally than I do...and evidence/argument will only invest me with emotional frustration.
In my estimation, you don't understand the criticism Steve has laid out, further, the fact you find unfounded accusations re: sock-puppeting" as compelling evidence is just laughable. You may be right, but one would think you'd have evidence? If you don't provide evidence, some may infer you did the sock-puppeting and accused T-bloggers of doing it.
To the thief, everyone's a thief.
Craig,
"In my estimation, you don't understand the criticism Steve has laid out...."
It's hard to make sense of nonsense. But go ahead if you think you can.
"...the fact you find unfounded accusations re: sock-puppeting" as compelling evidence is just laughable."
"Unfounded??" What are you talking about? I already laid out my evidence, one of the profiles I cited being a confirmed sockpuppet. You continue to employ falsehood in stating that I made accusations of sockpuppetry against them at all, as I made it a point specifically to not accuse Steve or any of his cohorts of being sockpuppets.
"I don't accept your challenge."
No surprises here. That which is illogical is often indefensible.
J.C.,
You come out of the gate blasting machine gun accusations of dishonesty.
Do I engage you, or ignore you?
Either way, I am betting it will be perceived as evidence of my dishonesty. When certain individuals say:
* Citing numerous examples of other people with writing styles similar to his (which Kangaroodort actually anticipated that Manata would do)
it only demonstrates said individual will find anything and everything to be evidence they're right!
I anticipated you would call me dishonest...unfortunately, I didn't write that down in my comment. Does that prove anything? Not really.
Sometimes people will underscore to superfluous nature of another's accusations rather than answer directly. It's not an admission of guilt.
As for your opinion of my level of honesty...well, if any other commenters would like to weigh in, they're welcome to. A number of them know me outside of blogging...we disagree, sometimes vigorously (just ask Rob R)...but I would be surprised if they described me as dishonest.
But then again, I didn't come out and say I'm not dishonest...therefore, I must be dishonest!
You see, J.C., I have to weigh the merits of someone's case before I will begin to engage them along with their commitment to interacting with pertinent information. Your first comment gave you 2 strikes immediately...your 2nd post gave you another 2...so I guess you swung so hard on the 3rd strike you went full circle again for a 4th.
Whether or not T-blogger Paul Manata used sock puppets is immaterial...juvenile, perhaps, but not particularly important.
How is it you find those gnats with the taste of camel in your mouth? You don't have to answer that...but if you do, it confirms everything I think about you...if you don't, it means you know I'm on your tail, so really...it just means I'm right.
Craig,
"it only demonstrates said individual will find anything and everything to be evidence they're right!"
That doesn't follow.
"Sometimes people will underscore to superfluous nature of another's accusations rather than answer directly. It's not an admission of guilt."
Nor did I imply that it was, hence my lack of accusation.
"I anticipated you would call me dishonest..."
Read it again, I didn't say you were dishonest; but some of your statements were nonetheless false (e.g. that I 'accused' them, which is plainly not true).
"Your first comment gave you 2 strikes immediately"
And what would those be?
"Whether or not T-blogger Paul Manata used sock puppets is immaterial"
As far as discerning the issues, no, it isn't. As far as credibility of source, it very well relevant.
"How is it you find those gnats with the taste of camel in your mouth?"
Care to clarify how this analogy applies to me?
J.C. Thibodaux said...
"The author of that particular blog has no grasp of what Arminianism constitutes, fails to understand even fundamental logic, has a disconnect from reality, and willfully rejects foundational Christian principles by outright embracing intellectual dishonesty."
Of course, Thibodaux seems me the way a thief sees a policeman.
"His 'answer' is nothing more than mindless spin, bereft of any viable evidence whatsoever."
Thibodaux's dismissive remark is about mindless spin is, itself, mindlness spin.
Hopefully Thibodaux is still young enough to outgrow his play-acting. He's like a foppish character from a Victorian novel of manners. The arch sense of slighted honor against his august personage.
At this time there's no way to reach the real person behind all his make-up and consume and memorized lines.
Additionally Craig,
As far as why your first statement is a non-sequitur, we weren't using Manata's attempts at averting suspicion as evidence of our case. Read what's on the tin, I simply thought it was humorous (just as I did numerous other statements), as did my friend who anticipated the move. How you infer that I was using this as evidence of my case is beyond me I'm afraid. Was this perceived attempt at citing faulty evidence one of the 'strikes' to which you refer?
Post a Comment