Pseudo-intellectualism? It takes more skill to say things simply than profoundly using big words and concepts. He is in the rarified atmosphere of academia at the moment. Hopefully, one will step out of the ivory tower when leading the working stiff sheep and make it practical. Having said that, in this type of forum, perhaps we can try to stretch ourselves and learn the lingo and academic issues. I also have trouble understanding seekings arguments, so it would be helpful if he clarified on more basic terms.
ARGH!!! Calvinism makes me furious!!!
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
I’ve seen a few interesting posts in this and other similar threads and I am hoping somebody(s) would be interested in expounding and/or addressing a few semi-related questions. My apologies if I don’t remember who posted what. I can’t keep up with you guys.
In *my opinion*, based on an admittedly cursory reading, many open theists on these boards deride Calvinism on grounds that, at bottom, are no more favorably addressed by openness theology; most specifically, these open theists argue that Calvinists (I’ll use that misnomer for the sake of argument) worship a God who actually *ordains* the wicked acts of men. Presumably, when open theists point this out, they expect to draw gasps of horror from the gallery (or smirks of derision when employing snide sarcasm). My question concerns how open theism avoids eliciting a similar response according to its doctrine. As I see it, openness theology can only offer one of a few distasteful alternatives (excluding the crassly anti-Christian ones):
While holding that God does not ordain any wicked acts, OT’ists could propose that A), God *knows of* men’s wicked acts at some point before they are committed, and though He’s powerful enough to thwart them in any number of ways, He chooses not to; OR, OT could suggest that B) God foreknows the wicked acts of men but is somehow unable to stop them; OR, C) God *does not* foreknow men’s wicked acts and is therefore unable to act in time to stop them. While A) is a plausible alternative within Reformed theology, the notion that God did not *ordain* the wicked acts is not, and that, I assume, is one point where open theists make their assault on Calvinist doctrine anyway. Yet, if OT’ists do suggest A), I’m unsure how they escape arousing the same indignation toward their idea of God as the Calvinists supposedly do, for if God was *able* to deter a wicked act, yet did not, He would be just as culpable (or maybe a teensy bit less) for the act as the Calvinists’s God would be. Meanwhile, a God of such a nature suggested by B) and C) would hardly be any God at all, and certainly not the God portrayed in Scripture. What OT alternative am I missing?
As for the question lately debated in here about God’s role in the weather, I think a similar boomerang criticism of Calvinism launches from the OT camp and returns to bonk the would-be critic in the neck. Why is it distasteful to think of God as controlling the weather (at all times, in all places), as most (reasonable!) Christians believe, yet it isn’t distasteful to acknowledge, as OT’ists do, both that God *has* controlled the weather before, resulting in the deaths of babies and puppies, and/or that he would permit (or is unable to stop) catastrophic weather, resulting in tragic deaths?
In *my opinion*, based on an admittedly cursory reading, many open theists on these boards deride Calvinism on grounds that, at bottom, are no more favorably addressed by openness theology; most specifically, these open theists argue that Calvinists (I’ll use that misnomer for the sake of argument) worship a God who actually *ordains* the wicked acts of men. Presumably, when open theists point this out, they expect to draw gasps of horror from the gallery (or smirks of derision when employing snide sarcasm). My question concerns how open theism avoids eliciting a similar response according to its doctrine. As I see it, openness theology can only offer one of a few distasteful alternatives (excluding the crassly anti-Christian ones):
While holding that God does not ordain any wicked acts, OT’ists could propose that A), God *knows of* men’s wicked acts at some point before they are committed, and though He’s powerful enough to thwart them in any number of ways, He chooses not to; OR, OT could suggest that B) God foreknows the wicked acts of men but is somehow unable to stop them; OR, C) God *does not* foreknow men’s wicked acts and is therefore unable to act in time to stop them. While A) is a plausible alternative within Reformed theology, the notion that God did not *ordain* the wicked acts is not, and that, I assume, is one point where open theists make their assault on Calvinist doctrine anyway. Yet, if OT’ists do suggest A), I’m unsure how they escape arousing the same indignation toward their idea of God as the Calvinists supposedly do, for if God was *able* to deter a wicked act, yet did not, He would be just as culpable (or maybe a teensy bit less) for the act as the Calvinists’s God would be. Meanwhile, a God of such a nature suggested by B) and C) would hardly be any God at all, and certainly not the God portrayed in Scripture. What OT alternative am I missing?
As for the question lately debated in here about God’s role in the weather, I think a similar boomerang criticism of Calvinism launches from the OT camp and returns to bonk the would-be critic in the neck. Why is it distasteful to think of God as controlling the weather (at all times, in all places), as most (reasonable!) Christians believe, yet it isn’t distasteful to acknowledge, as OT’ists do, both that God *has* controlled the weather before, resulting in the deaths of babies and puppies, and/or that he would permit (or is unable to stop) catastrophic weather, resulting in tragic deaths?
This is all I'm getting at. I don't mind challenging posts that present new ideas but seekinganswers doesn't even try to communicate (seemingly). He just throws gobbledigook out there like everyone should be able to follow him, knowing that they cannot. It's clear that he does it intentionally and doesn't care whether people can understand him or not. As a result no one pays any attention to what he says.godrulz said:
Resting in Him,
Clete
God_Is_Truth
New member
Z Man said:
I don't have any problem with saying that God creates calamity. But what I'm really speaking about is going beyond the text. It doesn't say God creates all calamity, just that he creates it. See the difference? If God wanted to say he created all calamities then the verse would have said "I create all calamities" or "I am the one who does create all calamities that ever were and ever will be" or something like that. But all we have in the verse is that God creates calamities. It doesn't say all calamities, just calamities.
The "calamities" go along with light and darkness and peace. If I turn on a light bulb, then I'm the one who just created the light. God didn't do it. And so, logically, since those things (light, dark, peace, calamities) are grouped together, and since one of them is clearly not absolute, then so are the rest. Since light is not absolute, neither is calamities, because they are grouped together as commonalities.
I agree! But of couse we don't completely agree what God's character entails. I think we would both say it's ultimately good, but even that we might not agree what it means.
Well I think you've assumed your conclusion here. As explained above, all Isaiah 45:7 says is that God creates calamity, period. It doesn't say all calamity or just some or anything, just calamity. So, I showed my reasoning based on the rest of the verse why it should not be taken absolutely. Your reasoning (from what i've read) is based on examples. However, while examples can be support for a premise they ultimately cannot prove it. My logic above is in the form to prove (at least more reasonably) my position.
So, unless you can show my logic to be faulty or without base (which examples cannot do) then I think we cannot assume that it means "all calamities" and therefore cannot assume the tower falling was from God.
Superb! :up:
So, you are simply calling it a mystery? Would showing how it took away glory from God be something that would cause you to change your mind? Or do you believe there is no such thing and that all things give God glory?
Ahh, but do you think the people then would have understood it? The 12 had quite a time understanding half of what Jesus said, so do you really believe the rest of the people would have understood that about glory? Jesus had no problem repeating himself about other things, why not this?
Interesting.
So, let me get this straight, are you saying Christianity is illogical? Is that what you honestly believe? Now something being hard to understand is quite different from it being illogical. A square circle is illogical, why there is something instead of nothing is just hard to understand. So, do you believe Christianity (faith, the trinity etc.) is just hard to understand or do you believe it's actually illogical? Is it like a square circle, or the idea of "something instead of nothing"?
I'm not denying that God could indeed control all things if he chose to. No Christian denies that. But, all i was asking is about how we reason. Just because something is right part of the time does not mean it's right all the time. Just because it worked that way once doesn't mean it will work that way next time. Just because I picked a green shirt last tuesday does not mean I will pick a green shirt next tuesday. See how it works? Just because something is the case once does not mean it is always the case. Now apply it to God causing things. Just because he caused some things (like the flood) does not necessarily mean he caused all things. Accepting this does not mean you deny God causes all things only that causing some is not a proof for causing all. Make sense?
This was in repsonse to yours! The question is rhetorical.Rutabaga said:
In other words your so called "distasteful alternatives" is no such thing. God doesn't stop all evil events from happening because the alternative would be worse. You cannot ask why God doesn't stop today's suffering without asking why God didn't stop yesterday's or last week's or last year's and so on. Why didn't God detroy the Earth and everything in it when Adam and Eve fell in the garden is really what you are asking. The answer is, mercy and grace. No one would have ever been saved had God done that and thus it is better to allow evil for a time.
Romans 8:18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. 19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God.
Resting in Him,
Clete
As usual.... very nice! :up:Clete said:
Z Man
New member
No.God_Is_Truth said:
I don't think the 'light' God speaks of in Isaiah 45 is an illuminous energy source. I believe He's speaking of times of happiness, enlightenment, understanding, peace, etc. He didn't mean to imply that He creates these things seperately. I think He defines Himself more clearly when He restates what He says in Isaiah 45:7(a), by saying He creates peace and calamities in Isaiah 45:7(b). So God is saying:
"(a)I create light and darkness; (b)in other words, peace and calamity."
God says He creates life - does that imply He creates all life or not?
Your logic is faulty because you assume God to hold human attributes. For example, if I said I create calamity, it is automatically assumed that the calamity I create is only limited in my life experiences and anyone who crosses my path. But for God, His existence and experience is felt by everyone - He is involved in everyone's life. When He says He creates calamity, it's not limited to just a specific case, because everyone exists by God's will.
The US Constitution states that only Congress has the power to declare war. Therefore, in every instance that we've declared war on another country (only 5 times in our nation's history), it can be rightly assumed that Congress declared them. The Bible states that God creates calamity, thus whenever there is calamity in our lives, we can rightly assume that He caused it. There is no other power who has that right. Do you have any proof otherwise, other than saying you can turn on a light bulb?
I don't know personally what chain of events unvieled after the tower fell in Siloam, but I'm positive that whatever happened glorified God.
There is no such thing - all things give God glory.
There are times when God didn't want everyone to understand.
Matthew 13:10-15
And the disciples came and said to Him, "Why do You speak to them in parables?" He answered and said to them, "Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says: 'Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, And seeing you will see and not perceive; For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.'"
I don't think it was important. The tragedy itself in Siloam, I don't think, was of dire importance to discuss. The disciples simply thought it to be a judgement from God upon those who died for their wickedness and Jesus denounced that false ideology, stating they were no worse sinners than those who survived. The rain falls on the just and the unjust.
There is nothing logical about the Trinity, or a God whose Son came to earth to die for everyone's sins, or for dead people to rise again, or for a being to always have been and never created, etc. If Christianity was logical, like 2+2=4, then everyone would believe. But it's not, thus the reason faith is required.
Faith goes where logic cannot.
Then what are we arguing about?
No. Who else could cause things in absence of God? Show me where God is not a primary cause and I'll see your point. Until then, I will continue to base my conclusion that God is the primary cause of calamities and such things because the Bible says He is.
seekinganswers
New member
Clete said:
Clete and Godrulz,
I'm sorry that I speak in intellectual ways, it is just the way that I write more than anything. In person I am more maleable.
The problem with learning is that one needs access to the learning in order to be able to understand it. Learning becomes a status symbol in our world, which allows one to more easily rise through the ranks of society (because one can more easily manipulate the system). Though I find the learning to be imperative, it still involves this danger.
Please know that I said what I said before in all sincerity, not simply to silence you (because you didn't know how to respond). One man's art is another's headache.
So I will do my best to unpack what I said:
seekinganswers said:
You see the way that I envision my relationship to the Creator is not simply as a friendship. Believe me, "personal relationship" is important, though I despise the way in which we define personal and relationship. Personal is understood many to be on an equal level with someone by many in our time. You don't have a "personal relationship" with your boss (or at least you don't while you're on the clock); you don't have a "personal relationship" with your parents (at least not when mom or dad takes on a role of authority). Personal relationship must be held on a level of equality, and if that equality is broken, then the relationship ceases to be personal.
How does this get translated over to our relationship with God? Well, we define God as personal when God condecends his authoritarian role. So the God who judges is not a "personal" God; the God who sends fire and brimstone down on Sodom and Gomorrah is not acting personally. We distinguish roles in God, where personal enwraps God's love and incarnation, while God's authoritarian role transforms God into an "impersonal" God. Ultimately we distinguish God's roles by persons in the Trinity, so that the Holy Spirit and the Son are "personal," while the Father is "authoritarian." And the Son and the Holy Spirit do not reveal the Father to us any longer, but merely serve as intermediaries that protect us from the wrath of God (for God's personable character is overshadowed by God's wrath and indignation over human injustice).
There is one problem I have with this: Christ is not merely the intermediary between us and God (Christ functions as an intermediary, however as far as I am concerned, Christ is not intervening on behalf of a God too holy to enter the world, but on behalf of a blind people). Christ is more than an intermediary; Jesus the Christ is the image of God (in flesh and blood), so that whoever sees the Son sees the Father as well, and the one who knows the Father knows the Son. The Son is not simply a softer version of the vengful God; Christ is the image of God almighty.
The Serpent of the garden has been far too crafty for his own good, and we have been duped by his craftiness. The serpent gets the humans of the garden to believe that God lives in such a way that God is selfish, and a God who is selfish must get what God wants at all costs (even to the extent of withholding from humanity a good, and then lying about it, for if humans were "like god" than God's judgments about the world would no longer be absolute, and God's place would be challenged). The Serpent's deception is not merely to turn what is evil into good; the serpent convinces the humans that the good God of Creation is not as good as God appears to be. Eating from the tree is impossible unless one questions the goodness of God. If God is good, there is no eating from the tree; but if God's goodness is cast in shadow, than eating from the tree is only natural.
And you see, if we approach the story of the garden from this perspective, than God's response to the transgression of the humans is either authoritative or loving depending on whether you have allowed the serpent to cloud your view. God does not come in a rage demanding to know who has transgressed his commands. The first words from the mouth of God are, "Where are you?" And you see that God is much more personal than we ever give him credit for. Even before Christ has been imagined, God demonstrates grace. For God's position of authority does not preclude God's personal nature. God is personal as God, not because God becomes equal to us. God did not need to send Christ to become personal; God was personal long before Jesus was conceived in Mary.
So this leads me to an explanation of my statement about my life and the lives of my contemporaries and the lives of those who came before me being held in God. We are not allowed to be relational with God because God has allowed us to be equal to God (sharing God's "qualities"). We are relational with God only because God is God, and God in God's grace (God's whim to do as God sees fit) has gifted us with life, and it is this life (a life which remains God's) which allows us to be "personal." We are not related to God on equal terms. We are ever contingent upon God for life, and the life that is gifted to us can only be sustained in God. We cannot live on our own. The life we have is not our own, and if we live as if it were ours to keep, we will only discover how easily life can be taken away. Our beginning is held in God, and so is our telos (i.e. our future).
So this throws into question your assumption that the God of authority cannot be personal. God doesn't want to relate to us on equal terms (do we seek to be on equal terms with the pottery that we mold in our hands so that it can be better related to it and better shape it?). God is personal as God, and we are called to know God as God (not as one who has become less than God).
This means that God holds both the beginning and the end (telos). And I want you to understand that my intentional use of beginning (or "head) and telos is so that you do not think that I am speaking about an exhaustive knowledge of events. God enwraps the Creation not by an exhaustive control of it (the Calvinist mistake). God enwraps Creation because God is the source of it (as Creator) and God is the sustainer of it (as in the one who imbues the Creation with purpose [telos]). And if you think that I am overstepping my bounds here, know that the language I am using comes straight from the scriptures themselves. When the scriptures speak of time it has nothing to do with a sequence of events and everything to do with source and purpose. Time has a head (source); and time has a culminative force (a purpose).
This is why God is open in the present while being "closed" as the Creator. God's grace (that is God's desire to do whatever God wants to do; God's closed aspect) is what allows for an openness (a giftedness to us). Calvinists transfer God's grace to salvation, so that the Creation is lost. I think this is ironic, for by saying that the Creation has fallen, they have revealed a grace of God that is not irresistable (as it led to an initial failure that God had to ammend).
I would like to continue, but I have already written very much, and I don't know if you will even read what I have said because of its length. There is much more that I could say, but I will save it until I know that you are even interested in hearing it. But I hope that my words have been less intellectual and more down to earth.
Peace,
Michael
Clete said:
Unfortunately, this doesn’t approach the gist of my question, which is this: why is Reformed theology so repulsive for its contention that God ordains evil events, while open theism gets a pass because God merely permits them (or whatever it is you believe)? Your rhetorical answer could be affirmed by either side. Have you ever heard a Reformed theologian renounce mercy and grace? I’m sure you also realize that any good Reformed believer keenly recognizes the effects of sin on creation. In light of the ubiquitous criticism of Reformed thought on the subject of God’s decrees, I have to imagine open theists would answer my questions differently than Reformed theists would, no?
God_Is_Truth
New member
In order to keep our discussion focused and to the point, I'm only going to respond to this area about logic. I believe it's more important than the other things we have been talking about.
Z Man, if Christianity is not logical then it's not true. Illogical things do not exist. Illogical things are impossible. If it's not logical then it's senseless and utterly false. You can't have something be true and illogical at the same time.
Now you can say that you don't know how something works but to deny that it is somehow logical is to deny that it's true. Nothing illogical is true by definition. Faith without logic is wishful and stupid thinking.
If Christianity is not logical then we have all believed a lie and better find out what is true on the double.
Whether in fact God actually did those things. Just because God can does not mean he does.
People cause things!
Z Man said:
Z Man, if Christianity is not logical then it's not true. Illogical things do not exist. Illogical things are impossible. If it's not logical then it's senseless and utterly false. You can't have something be true and illogical at the same time.
Now you can say that you don't know how something works but to deny that it is somehow logical is to deny that it's true. Nothing illogical is true by definition. Faith without logic is wishful and stupid thinking.
If Christianity is not logical then we have all believed a lie and better find out what is true on the double.
Whether in fact God actually did those things. Just because God can does not mean he does.
People cause things!
seekinganswers
New member
P.S. - by intellectual I in no way am intending "wise" (I mean more "intelectualism" as a status in the world; my speech is more likely to get me a promotion than it is going to help me communicate with my coworkers); as Godrulz said, it takes more wisdom to communicate what one has learned than it does to reiterate it. When I write I cannot help but write the way that I do. That is why I write so much, because if I write only a little bit, the economy of my words becomes my undoing, for I can only write consicely if I make certain assumptions about what my audience already knows (and usually such assumptions are dangerous). That is where misunderstanding takes root.
Peace,
Michael
Peace,
Michael
I caused the mouse to my computer to move. :idea:I must cause all computer mice to move!
seekinganswers
New member
God_Is_Truth said:
Spoken like a true modernist. My question to you is, whose logic? We assume that logic is a "neutral space" where "truth" resides. The last time I checked, for Christians truth is held in God (in fact Jesus "is the truth"). It would be very difficult to find this proposition within the scriptures: "What resides in logic = truth". Truth is not held in our ability to grasp it for the scriptures; truth within the scriptures is an ontological reality. Truth for the scriptures is not an epistemic question (how do we know what we know?); truth for the scriptures is an ontological reality (What is real?).
Logic is systematic approach to the world. The logic of the Greeks assumed an onto-theological grounding for their propositions (i.e. the unity of self, world and God in a single reality governed by the divine). In the Modern period this unity of self-world-God is fractured, in a way that elevates the self above all things, and submits the world and God to that self. Truth is no longer a reality in our world. Truth has become nothing more than a projection of the self (an existential question).
Peace,
Michael
If it's possible, it's logical. Even if it doesn't make sense to you. And I'm fairly certain many things do not make sense to you.seekinganswers said:
God_Is_Truth
New member
seekinganswers said:
What in the world kind of nonsense is this? Instead of posing nonsense questions that no one cares about, why don't you post something that's relevant and makes sense? Your entire post used logic that everyone understands and so you are shooting yourself in the foot with your question about "whose logic" to use. Reading this response used logic. It takes logic to make a post, to interpret what's on the screen, to type words, to think of ideas, on and on and on. Everything is logical! You cannot do the illogical! You can't find anything, zip, nada, zilch, in the scriptures without using logic. You cannot find truth without logic. If you are going to deny logic then go stick your head in the sand.
Man I'm gonna hate fellowship week when it gets here.
p.s. in case you didn't notice, my screen name is "God_Is_Truth" which reflects the logical belief that God is the source of all that is true. John 1:1 and John 14:6 are the scriptures. But don't forget that it took logic to realize this truth.
seekinganswers
New member
God_Is_Truth said:
It didn't take logic to realize that God is truth; it took the foolishness of the cross. It wasn't our understanding that brought us to God. It was the very incarnation (the re-creation).
As far as your statement about logic is concerned, I didn't reject logic, I merely emphasized the who in the logic. When you present logic as a singular neutral stance on the world you stand in Modernity. Logic as the unifying principle of humanity grounded in rational thinking is entirely a modern conception. The early Greek philosophers never understood logic in this hegemonic way. Logic for the greeks was about wisdom, which by its very nature was unique to the circumstance. It wasn't about an abstraction, but it was about the concrete, one's ability to deal with problems and to judge rightly in disputes. It was never a systematic approach to the truth. Truth for the Greeks resided in an ontological reality. Truth was never held in logic, but external to the experiences of a person. "The truth was out there," it wasn't dependant upon one's ability to discern it.
And this is the same worldview of the scriptures. The truth is an ontological reality that invades our understandings of it. The truth is a light that invades the darkness (human understanding). The truth is Jesus of Nazareth walking in the flesh and dispelling all abstractions concerning God.
You want to know something that is really funny? You, "God_is_truth", would reject the liberalism that would deny the truth of the scriptures, and yet you embrace the very liberal approach to the scriptures that is given to us by the Enlightenment. You exchange one liberalism for another. So you will scoff at those rational thinkers who reject your "truth" because of its miraculous accounts and super-nature (a stance very much grounded in logic, logic being grounded in what is empirically derived, what is observable), yet you will approach the scriptures based on that very logic (and try to appease the skeptics by showing just how rational and reasonable the scriptures really are). You will reject the atheist and yet will ground your religion in a very secular phenomonology of religion grounded in thinkers like Kant and Schliermacher and Tillich. Isn't that just a riot?
God_is_truth, before you go around trying to be an expert on rationalism, you might want to do a little research on the foundations of that rationalism and see how "Biblical" it is. Your ideas are not yours; you just don't know your sources. Rationalism is grounded in philosophy, and is very much a child of Modernity. Does that mean that theology is "irrational"? No. It just means that theology understands rationality in a very distinct way from Philosophy (which is searching for a grounding of thought since it is no longer certain about God). You only hold onto logic in a search for God. A theologian is not searching for God, but is trying to receive the revelation from God that is already accepted (a revelation which by nature is not logical or understandable by everyone, for it comes in contingency). One accepts revelation in faithfulness and devotion to a Lord that one already bows to. Revelation doesn't beg a following; revelation is a command, a breaking in of God into the world.
So you can have your liberal theology. I will stick with the revelation of Christ.
Peace,
Michael
God_Is_Truth
New member
seekinganswers said:
You can't understand anything without using logic! You can't know that something is right and that something else is wrong without using logic. It's inescapable.
You presented it in a way that suggested one could use different forms of logic that were in some way competing with one another. My point is that logic is logic.
I really have no idea what you mean about "a singular neutral stance on the world" or how you would define "Modernity" as it relates to logic.
I don't mean to say that Logic is itself truth, only that logic leads to truth and is always the means to that end. Truth is indeed found in God, and Logic is the only way to arrive at it. You will never find that truth through illogical and irrational means because truth itself is rational and logical. Does that make more sense?
I don't disagree with any of that. My point is that we discover that truth through logic.
I have no idea why you think rationality and logic are liberal ideas.
I don't get it. So, no it's not funny.
The ideas are not mine, the acceptance or rejectance of them is. I certainly believe we get things wrong, that we don't always get logic right, or that we reason incorrectly because of incorrect or a lack of information. But that's got nothing to do with logic and rationality in and of itself.
I don't see how you are talking about rationality itself but only the ground upon which it stands.
Are you sure you understand logic? How can you let go of logic when you find God? If you let go of logic, you couldn't embrace anything God said! Because without logic contradictions are allowed free reign and just because God said something wouldn't mean the opposite might be just as true (so to speak). Everything would be true which is the same as saying nothing is true. Hence, without logic there is no truth.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/outofur/archives/2006/03/pimping_jesus_2.html
Seeking...is this similar to your concerns about 'personal relationship'?
Christianity is relational theism. It is more than mental assent or a metaphysical change without intimacy. Transcendence is not compromised by immanence nor intimacy. The triune God is relational. Man is relational. Salvation involves reconciliation and reciprocal love relationships. Eternal life is knowing God, not just knowing about Him (Jn. 17).
Seeking...is this similar to your concerns about 'personal relationship'?
Christianity is relational theism. It is more than mental assent or a metaphysical change without intimacy. Transcendence is not compromised by immanence nor intimacy. The triune God is relational. Man is relational. Salvation involves reconciliation and reciprocal love relationships. Eternal life is knowing God, not just knowing about Him (Jn. 17).