Our Moral God

[blueboy]

I posted this a long time ago but it doesn't seem to have survived the software upgrade and so I'm posting it again here. Enjoy!

Our Moral God

The question of God's morality might, to some, seem a ridiculous question. To some the idea that God might not be moral is so ludicrous a thought that it would be down right blasphemous to even utter it aloud. After all, they say, if God is amoral (i.e. non-moral) then there can be no standard of right and wrong. But to those who take such a position it would come as quite a surprise to discover that there are at least as many, if not more, who think it an equally blasphemous thought to suggest that God is moral. After all, God is not subject to the law! Right?

What is the source of such confusion? Well, there are many possible ways to answer that question, the most obvious of which has to do with the defining of terms and explaining in more detail what is meant when one says that God is, or is not, moral. But I don't believe that the problem can really be solved by a mere analysis of the semantics involved. This is not an issue of sophistry but rather it is a problem of philosophy. There is a more fundamentally philosophical issue involved here that I believe the vast majority of people on both sides of this issue do not understand nor do they even have any inkling of the issue's existence for that matter. The purpose of this essay is to bring this issue to the attention of those on both sides of this issue and to explain how the God we serve is indeed moral but not because He follows or is subject to a set of rules nor because His nature defines morality, which is meaningless, but because God is rational.

In John chapter one we are taught not simply that Jesus is God, nor simply that God became a man, but that God the Son is the Logos of God. The New King James renders the passage this way...

John1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.​

​

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.​

​

10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.​

​

14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.​

In this passage, everywhere you see the phrase, "the Word" the Greek word being used is "Logos". It is important to understand what this Greek word means because the use of "Word" as an English translation just doesn't convey what this passage is teaching. Logos conveys the idea of communication or more specifically, discourse and more specifically than that, rational discourse and or rational argument. It is the word from which we get the suffix "-ology", as in Biology, Technology, Climatology, Cosmology, etc. So the study of living things is "Biology" and the processes in a living creature are said to be biological. Notice bio-LOGICAL. This is the meaning conveyed by "Logos". To apply logic to the processes in living things, and thus to understand them, is biology, it is the logos of life.

So now, with this better understanding of the Greek, lets look at this passage again...

John 1:1 In the beginning was Logic, and Logic was with God, and Logic was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.​

​

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.​

​

10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.​

​

14 And Logic became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.​

Now, there are some who object to such a translation thinking it improper to equate the living God with some abstract concept such as logic. But it should be noted that those who make such an objection never object to God being equated with the abstract concept of "Word", nor are they typically capable of offering any explanation as to what exactly it means to say "the Word as God". In other words, people who object on the grounds of referring to God as an abstraction, typically have no real problem with abstractions so long as the abstraction being used can't be made any sense of at all.

This is, however, quite a new idea to most of those reading this and so let me just cite a couple of other's who have used and acknowledge the validity of such a translation. Not that doing so helps to prove anything other than that this teaching is not unique to, nor can it's genesis be attributed to me. Indeed, this idea is as old as Christianity. As evidence of both its veracity and its antiquity, I offer the following quotations, the likes of which there are many...

"...this translation––may not only sound strange to devout ears, it may even sound obnoxious and offensive. But the shock only measures the devout person's distance from the language and thought of the Greek New Testament. Why it is offensive to call Christ Logic, when it does not offend to call him a word, is hard to explain. But such is often the case. Even Augustine, because he insisted that God is truth, has been subjected to the anti–intellectualistic accusation of "reducing" God to a proposition. At any rate, the strong intellectualism of the word Logos is seen in its several possible translations: to wit, computation, (financial) accounts, esteem, proportion and (mathematical) ratio, explanation, theory or argument, principle or law, reason, formula, debate, narrative, speech, deliberation, discussion, oracle, sentence, and wisdom.

Any translation of John 1:1 that obscures this emphasis on mind or reason is a bad translation. And if anyone complains that the idea of ratio or debate obscures the personality of the second person of the Trinity, he should alter his concept of personality. In the beginning, then, was Logic." - Gordon H. Clark; Against The World. The Trinity Review, 1978-1988. [God And Logic, Gordon H. Clark, p. 52-56] John W. Robbins, Editor.

"For not only among the Greeks did reason (Logos) prevail to condemn these things through Socrates, but also among the Barbarians were they condemned by Reason (or the Word, the Logos) Himself, who took shape, and became man, and was called Jesus Christ;" Justin Martyr: The First Apology of Justin Chapter V

Logos n. < Gr, a word: see Logic 1 Gr. Philos. reason, thought of as constituting the controlling principle of the universe and as being manifested by speech 2 Christian Theol. the eternal thought or word of God, made incarnate in Jesus Christ: John 1 - Webster's Dictionary​

Okay, so what's the point? God is Logic, Logic is God - so what? Well, lets suppose someone, for whatever reason, rejects the Bible, Jesus Christ and the whole concept of God, a true atheist, attempts to think through the issues of life and does so in such a way so as to stay as true to the principles of logic and sound reason as he possibly can. If the Living God is Logic, what conclusions then should this person come too? Should they not be at least very similar to the teachings which are found in Scripture? If such an atheist existed and made such an attempt to use reason to formulate his philosophy of life, would he not be using God to formulate it, even if by accident and in ignorance?

Now, bearing that in mind I want to look at John 1 again. This time verse 4...

John 1:4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.​

I find it interesting that the issue of life is brought up in the context of the Logos of God. It interests me because if one were to attempt to contemplate a rational basis for morality, life would have to be a necessary starting point because it is only to the living that issues of morality apply or matter. Ayn Rand, just the sort of atheist to which I've been referring, put it this way...

"...the first question is "Does man need values at all—and why?" According to Rand, "it is only the concept of 'Life' that makes the concept of 'Value' possible," and, "the fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do." Rand writes: "there is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or non-existence—and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action... It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death..." The survival of the organism is the ultimate value to which all of the organism's activities are aimed, the end served by all of its lesser values." Ayn Rand(1964). The Virtue of Selfishness (paperback ed.). p. 13 & 18 New York: Signet.​

Rand also said,

"Man's mind is his basic tool of survival. Life is given to him, survival is not. His body is given to him, its sustenance is not. His mind is given to him, its content is not. To remain alive he must act and before he can act he must know the nature and purpose of his action. He cannot obtain his food without knowledge of food and of the way to obtain it. He cannot dig a ditch––or build a cyclotron––without a knowledge of his aim and the means to achieve it. To remain alive, he must think." Rand, Ayn (1992) [1957]. Atlas Shrugged (35th anniversary ed.). p. 1012 New York: Dutton​

Now, according to Rand, rationality is the primary virtue in ethics (i.e. morality). For rand ethics is...

"the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge, one's only judge of values and one's only guide to action." Rand, Ayn (1964). The Virtue of Selfishness (paperback ed.). p. 25 New York: Signet.​

All of which, if God is Logic, is entirely consistent with the common Christian teaching that morality is derived from and defined by God's character. Which, by the way, is not to say the Ayn Rand was a godly person, nor that her philosophical conclusion were all correct. On the contrary, her rejection of the existence of God lead to a great many errors, some of which are disastrously grievous. But, nevertheless, to the degree she stayed true to reason, here conclusions remained close to the truth, which means, by definition, that they remained close to God and His truth as taught in the pages of Scripture.

Rand's quintessential statement on morality is this ...

"Since reason is man’s basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil." Ayn Rand: Atlas Shrugged​

Now, since we now know that God is Reason, what could an atheist say that would be any more in line with the teachings of Scripture than that!?

And so, in conclusion, I attest and believe that I have now shown that we can find the answer to the confusion surrounding the morality of God in the fact the God is Logic. Morality is not simply defined by God's character as many Christians suppose, but rather that which is moral is so because it is rational, which, if you are following the line of thinking in this essay properly, you'll understand is the equivalent of saying that what is moral is so because it is God like. To say that God is moral, is not to say that God has a list of rules He must follow but simply that God is Life and that He is consistent with Himself and therefore acts in way which is proper to Life. To say that God is moral is to say that God is rational. A non-moral God would be non-rational and therefore non-personal, non-relational, non-thinking, non-living, non-real!

God is real, therefore God is rational, therefore God is moral!


Clete Pfeiffer

3/24/2012

Nice post, well written and thought out.

I don't believe we can attribute morality to God, this is an anthropomorphic depiction of God. Only humans are judged by morality. God is, I am that I am, a spiritual essence beyond any kind of relative state, eternal, uncreated, unchanging. Humans are subject to a relative state, (knowing the Tree of Good and Evil) and thus can be judged by morality. God is an absolute perfection and humans have no insight into absolute states. The concept of God is 100% abstraction.

“In the beginning” refers to that eternal reality beyond time, a reality that transcends all creation, is changeless and placeless, and yet is the very essence and source of all that exists or can ever exist. It is beyond time and space, beyond here or there, beyond up or down, hot or cold–beyond any duality or form there exists the “I am,” the single, indivisible, omnipresent, unfathomable “Word.” Within the absolute realm of the eternal “I am”, the Word exists without any need of expression or vocalization. It just is.

I really like how you frame the, "Word", as Logic.

God is the, "I am", transcending rational and moral. God is a state of perfection.

In order for the, "Word" to become Manifest in the material realm the, "Word" must Manifest through a human form, the likes of Jesus and Noah and Moses, etc.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I don't believe we can attribute morality to God,

Is something good because He commands it to be good, or is something good because He recognizes it as good?

this is an anthropomorphic depiction of God.

So what is it supposed to represent? Is not God good?

Only humans are judged by morality.

Can God know if He is good?

God is, I am that I am,

Yes.

a spiritual essence beyond any kind of relative state, eternal, uncreated, unchanging.

This sounds like new-age nonsense.

God is Spirit.
He is eternal.
He is uncreated, the Uncaused Cause.

But He is not unchanging.
He is not "beyond any kind of relative state," whatever that means.

He does not change in His character, but He does change in other ways, like becoming a man, dying, and rising from the dead, never to die again, growing in wisdom and favor, becoming the God of individuals, of a nation, of the world.

Humans are subject to a relative state, (knowing the Tree of Good and Evil)

1) It's "the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil."
2) By "relative state" are you defining that as "knowing the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil"? If so, please explain what that is supposed to mean.

and thus can be judged by morality.

Morality isn't something that "judges."

God is the judge, and He tells us to judge with righteous judgement.

God is an absolute perfection

More new-age nonsense.

and humans have no insight into absolute states.

Is that absolutely true?

The concept of God is 100% abstraction.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

And the Bible says otherwise.

“In the beginning”

It just means "in the beginning of the creation." (Creation here being a noun, not a verb, referring to the created universe.)

refers to that eternal reality

There is only one reality, and it's this one, because God is real, and everything in existence exists in the context of His being.

beyond time,

There's no such thing as "beyond time."

a reality that transcends all creation,

Again, there's only one "reality." Stop living in a fantasy one.

is changeless

Reality is that God existed for eternity past, then at some point created, and now 7,500 years later (give or take 100), we sit here discussing it.

Reality changed, because God is capable of change.

and placeless,

This one I somewhat agree with, prior to God creating, there was only God, but once He created, there was a "where."

However, I will point out that God's existence is "above" ours. What that means exactly, however, we won't be able to comprehend fully, if at all, until we get to heaven, where we no longer see through a glass dimly.

and yet is the very essence and source of all that exists or can ever exist.

This is idolatry.

Reality is not the source of existence. God is. Don't put your ideas of reality in place of God.

It is beyond time

Supra.

See also https://kgov.com/time

and space,

Space isn't a "thing," it's a construct we use to describe the physical relationship between two objects.

beyond here or there, beyond up or down, hot or cold–

Supra.

beyond any duality or form there exists the “I am,” the single, indivisible, omnipresent, unfathomable “Word.”

Conflating your concept of reality with God Himself has you confused.

GOD is the One who is omnipresent, but not everything about Him is unfathomable, and God the Son was separated from God the Father and God the Holy Spirit when He died on the cross to pay for our sins, but was reunited with Them upon His ascension.

And while there is one God, He is three Persons, in other words, there is a plurality in the Godhead.

Within the absolute realm of the eternal “I am”,

Only God is "I AM." There's no such thing as an "absolute realm of the eternal 'I am'."

the Word exists without any need of expression or vocalization. It just is.

More meaningless new-age nonsense.

I really like how you frame the, "Word", as Logic.

He's not the one who does that.

The word LOGOS (usually translated as "word") doesn't actually mean "word." It means logic.

God is the, "I am",

Yes, He is.

transcending rational and moral.

No, God doesn't "transcend" rational nor moral.

In a sense, He IS reason, anything that conflicts with Him is wrong.

He IS moral. He is the standard by which all are judged.

God is a state of perfection.

No. God is a being who IS perfect. He is not a "state of perfection.

In order for the, "Word" to become Manifest in the material realm the, "Word" must Manifest through a human form, the likes of Jesus and Noah and Moses, etc.

Jesus was and is God. Several times in His-story He manifested Himself in this world, prior to His incarnation. We call those theophanies.

Noah was not. Moses was not. Whomever you meant by "etc" was not.

 

[Clete]

Nice post, well written and thought out.

I don't believe we can attribute morality to God, this is an anthropomorphic depiction of God.

No, it isn't. God is good!

Deuteronomy 32:4 He is the Rock, His work is perfect; For all His ways are justice, A God of truth and without injustice; Righteous and upright is He.​

Psalm 118:1 Oh, give thanks to the Lord, for He is good! For His mercy endures forever. (see also Psalm 136:1)​

Psalm 143:10 Teach me to do Your will, For You are my God; Your Spirit is good. Lead me in the land of uprightness.​

Psalm 145:17 The Lord is righteous in all His ways, Gracious in all His works.​

Hosea 3:5 Afterward the children of Israel shall return and seek the Lord their God and David their king. They shall fear the Lord and His goodness in the latter days.​

Hosea 14:9 Who is wise? Let him understand these things. Who is prudent? Let him know them. For the ways of the Lord are right; The righteous walk in them,...​

Mark 10:18 So Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.​

There isn't anything in the text or in the context of any of these and perhaps a hundred other passages that say similar things that would cause anyone to suspect that they don't mean what they explicitly say.

In fact, the ONLY reason to think otherwise is if you bring your doctrine to the text.

Only humans are judged by morality.

Not so!

Malachi 3:10 Bring all the tithes into the storehouse, That there may be food in My house, And try Me now in this,” Says the Lord of hosts, “If I will not open for you the windows of heaven And pour out for you such blessing That there will not be room enough to receive it.​

​

Psalm 89:14 Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Your throne; Mercy and truth go before Your face.​

God is, I am that I am, a spiritual essence beyond any kind of relative state, eternal, uncreated, unchanging.

This is Greek philosophy, not biblical Christianity. God is a person. A person who is not only living, relational and loving but who created us for that very reason and purpose.

Humans are subject to a relative state, (knowing the Tree of Good and Evil) and thus can be judged by morality.

This is just completely wrong. Adam and Eve were both declared "very good" before they ever saw the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Genesis 1:31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.​

God is an absolute perfection and humans have no insight into absolute states. The concept of God is 100% abstraction.

This is not biblical Christianity.

“In the beginning” refers to that eternal reality beyond time, a reality that transcends all creation, is changeless and placeless, and yet is the very essence and source of all that exists or can ever exist. It is beyond time and space, beyond here or there, beyond up or down, hot or cold–beyond any duality or form there exists the “I am,” the single, indivisible, omnipresent, unfathomable “Word.” Within the absolute realm of the eternal “I am”, the Word exists without any need of expression or vocalization. It just is.

Self contradictory nonsense born out of Aristotelian stupidity that Augustine imported into the Catholic Church. It has exactly nothing to do with anything taught in the bible whatsoever. It is 100% irrational nonsense.

I really like how you frame the, "Word", as Logic.

I can't take credit for coming up with that but, yes, I like it too! "Logic" or "Reason" is a far better translation of Logos into English than is "word" which conveys almost no meaning in English at all.

God is the, "I am", transcending rational and moral. God is a state of perfection.

There can be no such thing as the super-rational. You said it yourself in a post on another thread. Truth is truth. There isn't any second kind of truth. The following is the only thing Aristotle ever wrote that is worth reading....

• The Law of Identity: A is A. A thing is what it is. This is the foundation of all knowledge excepting the singular presupposition of God Himself (i.e. somewhat redundant once you realize that God is Reason - thus "I am." is the ultimate expression of the law of identity.)
• The Law of excluded Middle: A truth claim is either true or it is false (i.e. given a particular context).
• The Law of contradiction: Any two truth claims that contradict cannot both be true (i.e given a particular context).

Incidentally, Aristotle is given credit for these laws but it should be noted that he did not invent them nor was he the first to understand them. He is given credit because his is the oldest known writings that include them and for no other reason.

And there is a word for being non-moral. That word is "amoral". Suggesting that God is amoral is heresy at best if not down right blasphemy.
And there is no door number three from which to choose, by the way. A thing is either moral, in which case issues of right and wrong apply, or a thing is amoral. There simply is no such thing as "supra-morality". It is an utterly meaningless concept that is completely foreign to the bible.

In order for the, "Word" to become Manifest in the material realm the, "Word" must Manifest through a human form, the likes of Jesus and Noah and Moses, etc.

I don't know for certain what it is you mean by that statement but on its face it appears to be blasphemy. Noah and Moses would both have struck you in the face for likening them to anything remotely similar to God in the flesh. God was on His way to kill Moses for having failed to circumcise his son and was denied entry into the promise land for having failed to follow God's explicit instructions and striking the rock (a picture of Christ's death) twice! He was anything but the Logos of God. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point here. Care to clarify?

Clete

 

[Lawson]

Jesus was and is God. Several times in His-story He manifested Himself in this world, prior to His incarnation. We call those theophanies.

I want to learn more about the theophanies. The Burning Bush is the only one I can fathom.

 

[Derf]

I want to learn more about the theophanies. The Burning Bush is the only one I can fathom.

Why do you think it's easier to fathom the burning bush than others?

 

[Lawson]

Why do you think it's easier to fathom the burning bush than other

The bush was burning but not consumed by flame.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I want to learn more about the theophanies. The Burning Bush is the only one I can fathom.

Consider also Jacob's wrestling match with Christ, Abraham's welcoming Christ as a guest in his home, and Moses getting to see God's back on Mount Sinai.

 

[Lawson]

visions and dreams often happen apart from God and as psychological phenomenon rather than spiritual

 

[Derf]

The bush was burning but not consumed by flame.

That sounds harder to fathom imo.

 

[Derf]

Consider also Jacob's wrestling match with Christ, Abraham's welcoming Christ as a guest in his home, and Moses getting to see God's back on Mount Sinai.

What about the cloud by day and fire by night?

 

[JudgeRightly]

What about the cloud by day and fire by night?

Sure.

I was just giving a few examples.

 

[Lon]

Hi Lon. Good to hear from you.


Can you explain what you mean by exacerbating theology?

Similar to trying to say a clock 'changes.' It displays differently, but it is unchanging. Some would argue that 12:01 is different than 12:00 and I agree, but 'different' isn't change. It is rather 'aspect' already there. "Change" exacerbates theology because it causes confusion between 'different' and 'not the same being.' A clock is always a clock therefore, for an anatomy and function discussion of a clock, 'change' isn't helpful for important discussion. It confuses rather than helps. We all grasp better "aspect of what is already there" when it comes to clocks and it is equally better to discuss God's character and nature without "change."

Do you mean "third"? If it's "okay in a sense", does that mean "ok to apply to God"? That's all I'm saying. But it has to apply in as infinite a way as God is infinite, don't you think? I don't think God is "different" in terms of His power, wisdom, understanding, promises, etc. But is He different in terms of His emotions (His perfect emotions)? If He's ever angry, will He ever NOT be angry? Wouldn't a perfect God only have the perfect (righteous) manifestation of anger? Only the right amount and no more? If He's patient with us now, will He still have to be patient with us once we're made like Christ? Or with those fitted for destruction, once He's destroyed them?

Let me ask: Are you 'angry' at atrocity? Are you happy at the birth of a child? Loving toward your children and wife? All at the same time or only when you hear these words? Our emotion and attitude is 'responsive' to circumstance when we are immediately interacting and aware. A few Open Theists argue God is like this, but God aware of all things all at once. We have limited ability to pay attention and carry all things. In Christ, all things now, exist and hold together. His response to all things never changes because He is fully aware and not only capable, but essential for all things to exist thus a 'change' would signify that something is happening a-part from God which is impossible. When doing theology, it is always advisable to recognize how we understand things differently than God and recognize that our capacity is limited. If we don't we would often come up with ideas that are wrong, because we try to apply the limitation to God.

[Rom 2:4 KJV] Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?
[Rom 9:22 KJV] [What] if God, willing to shew [his] wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
[1Ti 1:16 KJV] Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.

Do you really want God to stay angry all the time? When I got angry with my kids, I would stay angry longer than they deserved. God wouldn't. But that means His anger would subside.
Click to expand...

Want? Am I to dictate to God Who He is and how He should respond? Does God cater to my sensibilities? Does He answer to me? Job's answer was "Stand silent and know that I am God." God will remain angry at sin because His nature is ever against it. The basic is this: I not only want God always mad at sin (as if I am anybody that needs God to answer to him/her, I'm not), I don't want my human frailties dictating to the God of the universe. God is God and I am not. He IS loving. He IS good. "How" isn't really a huge concern for me. I don't want a humanized God. I'm the one who is in desperate need of Him. He isn't less loving for my need, but has to rightly demand that I be Holy 'as He is holy.' The impetus is always not on a God Who has any need of change (He is perfect), but on me who has a LONG way to go.

Short answer: I don't want nor want to conceive of God reacting with the limited capacity of man. I'm even arguing for/from the Open paradigm of God 'knowing all that is possible.' It'd mean He is easily angry at sin, now. Easily pleased with the work of Christ in us, now. Your question seems to want God to be like man for man's sensibilities. I suppose, between the difference between man and God, there is a desire to bridge the gap but Christ does this, and without a need to be exactly like us. He can be angry at this very second, at sin, and loving toward you because of His capacity. It is 'infinitely' more capable to balance.

Is God the Father still in the process of forsaking His Son?

I believe we are caught in a confusion: We experience nothing but time. God does not. He 'is.' "Before Abraham was, I AM." This verse expresses a truth beyond man's ability to grasp: BOTH was and is, at the same time (or perhaps better appreciated, without time). It is an expression that absolutely escapes man's ability to grasp God's existence beyond a time-line. I've attempted to explain this using lines and segments. A line must cross two points for man to be able to conceive it. The reality is that there are infinite lines that pass through any given point that to conceive, would likely cause brain matter to explode, in a similar way that Moses could not see God and live. It wasn't possible. Our God, in reality, is beyond our cognitive ability. Paul said 'we see through a glass darkly.' Scripture says one day 'know even as we are fully known.' These scriptures require we see limitation in our ability BUT if one grasps even a small inkling of what 'infinite' means, then limiting words begin to stop have meaning when compared to an infinite God. It isn't possible that God is only going forward in time. For instance: His past 'is still going' by eternal necessity. When the Father forsook the Son, it did reach into the eternal: It created long-lasting difference such that there was a quality to what Jesus did on the Cross for us that transcends a need for temporal language and the attempt actually diminishes the significance.

What about #2? Was the Son of God always a man? If so, then you must not agree that Adam was the first man, nor was Jesus the last Adam.

It is just a human trying to grasp the infinite. While I think we have good minds and an ability to grasp the things of God, we will ALWAYS see through a glass darkly. Because of that, Open Theism always has fallen short of actually asking OR answering my big questions. "Man" isn't eternal BUT we our whole being is a reflection of His being. It is a logical loop: We are created 'in His image' and then He 'became' man, in His own image.' The emphasis is a God who reaches, who loves, who digs in for us. I don't have to go down the Open paradigm to appreciate that. You could say this isn't a logical leap, OR that it was already a logical leap that Open Theism in no way shed an iota of difference for me. Judge Rightly mentioned something similar on the same page this one of yours is on.

Aren't you assuming what open theists ASSUMED? I used to assume that the description of God I was taught was correct, but it conflicted with what I read in the bible. If God is "impassible", but displays emotions (passion), of what use is the description? Something had to go, and it was much easier to lose the description than to jettison the bible.

Impassibility is simply stated in scriptures: "I change not." "Stand silent, and know I am God." In mathematics, I learned a sheet of paper represented a plane that had no measurement and extended without limit. I grasp without limit, but I cannot qualify the concept. Either one gets it or does not. God always was/is, for eternity. God doesn't change, philosophically, because there is nothing 'outside' or 'apart' from infinite. The language we have at that point even reaches beyond impassibility but scripture conveys God's nature as unchanging and even the Open Theist believes His nature is impassible. There is a difference, as per your previous question, between man's emotion/response and God's. We have great limitation thus generally only experience one emotion at a time, because we are only capable of focusing on one thing at a time. God presently sustains all things. His attention is simultaneous. Example: You can be praying right now, with very different concerns than I am, right now. God isn't confused and hears in clarity. You and I cannot, thus we react only to which conversation we happen to be paying attention to. God doesn't have this limitation. We don't have to jettison the Bible, but grasp how God is not like us and appreciate where there is difference.

[Jer 18:4-10 KJV] 4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make [it]. 5 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying, 6 O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay [is] in the potter's hand, so [are] ye in mine hand, O house of Israel. 7 [At what] instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy [it]; 8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. 9 And [at what] instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant [it]; 10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.

Similar to a clock discussion: Aspect, not change. "From man to God" we view a change. "From God to man" a condition of consequences that will follow, thus an aspect of the choice of man. It is important again, to restate: Infinite means 'without number or quantification.' You cannot 'measure' infinite or eternal quality. It is why Paul says in Ephesians 1 to discover the 'height depth and breadth' of God's love which 'is immeasurable.' Paul is praying and encouraging us to come to a realization: Numbers are meaningless when trying to grasp the things of God. 12:01 is meaningless to grasping how much God loves us. When? Always. 12:01 is irrelevant. God's Word

[Pro 25:2 KJV] [It is] the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings [is] to search out a matter.

The difference I see is that if something is supposed to be mystery, that's fine, but if something is supposed to be a contradiction...well, I guess I don't that in God's character.

Yes, agree. I can certainly understand a lot of what God has given, but we also have to learn Job's lesson to 'stand silent and' simply 'know that I am God.' His next line is "I SHALL be exalted!" That's the duty of man. We are the creation yet we have a small sense of 'being gods' that I always wrestle with. In humility, I want to remember I am His and I am His created being FOR His good pleasure. Perhaps the answer to Clete's thread is "Humility" as an answer. If the thread points to the difference between God and us, then we'll appreciate God more at that point of an ah ha moment.

subject​

adjective​

1. Being in a position or in circumstances that place one under the power or authority of another or others.

I don't know that many open theists (just on forums, really, and when I ask someone if God already knew what they would have for breakfast tomorrow, from the foundation of the world), but none of them would say that God is subject to creation, except when Jesus became a man. He aged, He wept, He tired, He slept, He bled and died at the hands of men. Is that what you mean?
Click to expand...

Jesus subjected Himself willingly, but we still have to be careful of theology that is finite-constrained in application to God lest we see God as a man at times, and not who He is. I do agree Jesus has made the Father accessible to us, but we yet have to be careful not to only conceive of God on a human level, even when considering His morality.

Maybe you mean that God is subject to time? But didn't we just talk about Him being "patient"? Isn't that, in a sense, subject to time? Tell me, Has God ever destroyed a city before it was built? Has God ever gone back and changed the past (not sure how we would know, but can you point where the bible tells us He did)? Maybe you've reached the wrong conclusion--you think God created time. Maybe time is a thing that is not created, but exists as part of the character of a God of order (He does things in the proper sequence, right?), or exists as a consequence of God's creative genius, but not as a creation itself. I'm just trying to offer some ways out of your dilemma, where God "waits".
[1Pe 3:20 KJV] Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

God is relational to time, in the same way He became a man. He sustains and interacts with creation. I have an aquarium. My hand is 'wet' any 'time' I put my hand in the water with my fish. God is the same. He interacts, but remember "all things are from Him and held together by Him" lest you have God 'part of creation' instead of being the all-in-all of everything and all.

Are these exclusive? Which one are you saying is not the case? Would you rather say "God is NOT relation and is NOT reaching to man"? Or "Man is NOT in need, as 'part' of creation, to reach God"? I'm a bit confused.

Hit on this above. God is 'our' God. We are not His. I'm the creation but our understanding has to always work from our being finite and Him always always always being infinite, lest we conceive of Him ONLY in our image rather than we in His. There is great comfort in knowing we are to 'be like Him' when we see Him, for we shall 'see Him as He is.' It is a state of being, given in scripture, that definitely tells us our existence and perception is limited and has a ceiling. It is a good thing for the king to seek out a matter, I'm just ever mindful I'm the creation, He the Creator. It places Him in the driver-seat.

Yet God made Himself to be in our image, didn't He? [Phl 2:7 KJV] But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

So who is the more concerned that God be made in our image?

I believe we have a strong desire to be loved BUT, as I've learned what kind of person I am and how well I love, I'm EVER thankful He comes to me, to meet me at my need BUT, the plan is to bring ME back to a place where love isn't messed up by me. IOW, I find a LOT of comfort that He doesn't change. That He isn't given to whims. That His love already IS perfect. I get to go be a part of that rather than wallowing here in a much lesser version.

And why is it spurned? Why is it called "heresy" by some, as soon as they hear a bit of it? Why are YOU so against it, Lon, if it is trying to make the most sense of bible passages without ignoring undesirable passages or ascribing God's actions to anthropomorphism (which is kind of like saying God is making Himself to be in the image of man, right)? Even if we're wrong, isn't that the best way to be wrong--believing the bible to be the truth about God, even if we don't understand what He is trying say?

Heresy often means 'different' but it can also carry the idea of 'does damage to what we know of God's character/being.' Many use it as a pejorative but I find it unhelpful. It is better to describe where we differ and explain what/which scriptures are in potential damage for the idea expressed.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

All men have sinned and have need of a savior. Indeed, we really have no idea just how dispicable we really are and won't have any idea until we see Him who is righteous face to face but that doesn't mean that every action we take is evil and a man who would neglect his own son has attained to a special kind of evil.

Those who have been found by God know exactly how despicable they are.
That is how one can know how far his mercy extends.
Trying to be good, to do what Jesus has already done, is a fool's errand.

 

[Clete]

Similar to trying to say a clock 'changes.' It displays differently, but it is unchanging. Some would argue that 12:01 is different than 12:00 and I agree, but 'different' isn't change. It is rather 'aspect' already there. "Change" exacerbates theology because it causes confusion between 'different' and 'not the same being.' A clock is always a clock therefore, for an anatomy and function discussion of a clock, 'change' isn't helpful for important discussion. It confuses rather than helps. We all grasp better "aspect of what is already there" when it comes to clocks and it is equally better to discuss God's character and nature without "change."

The distinction between "different" and "change" would have been angrily rejected by both Augustine and Calvin, not to mention Plato and Aristotle which is where the real Genesis of Divine Immutability is found.

There are several ways to demonstrate this, probably the most obvious of which is the doctrine of Divine Simplicity, which states that God does not have parts. There is no such thing as one aspect vs. some other aspect of God, according to this doctrine. As you suggest, a clock's moving hands do not constitute a change in the clock's essence but the very fact that a clock has hands that are distinct, not only from each other, but from the clock's face and it's miriade of other parts, is precisely the reason your argument here does not apply to God. So say those who understand the doctrine of Divine Immutability and it's corollary, the doctrine of Divine Simplicity.

The bottom line is that there isn't ANY wiggle room on the subject of Divine Immutability such as your comment above would suggest. The idea is very simply that God does not change in ANY way WHATSOEVER - period. Any apparent change is either some sort of figure of speech, an allegory or simply a failing of the human mind to understand. Otherwise, God isn't perfect. So says Aristotle and, therefore, so says Augustine and, therefore, so says, Luther, and, therefore, so says Calvin.

With your line of thinking, you might as well go the rest of the way and believe in Open Theism.

Clete

 

[Clete]

Let me ask: Are you 'angry' at atrocity? Are you happy at the birth of a child? Loving toward your children and wife? All at the same time or only when you hear these words? Our emotion and attitude is 'responsive' to circumstance when we are immediately interacting and aware. A few Open Theists argue God is like this, but God aware of all things all at once. We have limited ability to pay attention and carry all things. In Christ, all things now, exist and hold together. His response to all things never changes because He is fully aware and not only capable, but essential for all things to exist thus a 'change' would signify that something is happening a-part from God which is impossible. When doing theology, it is always advisable to recognize how we understand things differently than God and recognize that our capacity is limited. If we don't we would often come up with ideas that are wrong, because we try to apply the limitation to God.

Unbiblical, Aristotelian nonsense which can be refuted (i.e. proven false) by quoting a single passage of scripture. I'll quote three!

Genesis 3:9 Then the Lord God called to Adam and said to him, “Where are you?”​

​

Genesis 22:12 And He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”​

​

Genesis 18:21 I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know.”​

Thanks you Lord for your word and for the book of Genesis in particular where you are most clearly portrayed as real! A real person with real emotions with Whom we can genuinely relate and have real fellowship with!


Several other points in Lon's post are as unbiblical and as easily disposed of, not the least of which is the totally unbiblical utter nonsense he spouts about Impassibility which is nothing more, as he even states, than a corollary of Immutability. Funny how he picks and chooses which corollary doctrines to pay attention to and which to ignore.

Clete

 

[Clete]

Yet God made Himself to be in our image, didn't He? [Phl 2:7 KJV] But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

So who is the more concerned that God be made in our image?

Actually, it is we who are made in God's image, right?

Genesis 1:26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”​

Why is it so surprising then to find that we are sufficiently similar to God so as to facilitate a relationship between us and Him? Wasn't that the point of God having created us in the first place? Calvinist and other Augustinians want to make God so transcendent as to not only be beyond relationship but beyond comprehension. And I mean that quite literally. Any conception of God that can be understood by any rationally thinking mind is an affront and an insult to God's transcendence such that one is forced to ask what was the point of God creating such a pathetically incapacitated creature such as mankind to begin with.

 

[Clete]

Nice post, well written and thought out.

I don't believe we can attribute morality to God, this is an anthropomorphic depiction of God.

Anthropomorphisms are figures of speech. Figures of speech mean something. What does the figure of speech "God is moral." mean?

That isn't merely a rhetorical point. That's a real question. A question, I suspect, you'll have no answer for. The assigning of the label "anthropomorphism" to it is just a way of making it mean either its opposite or nothing at all.

Only humans are judged by morality.

Says who?

God is, I am that I am, a spiritual essence beyond any kind of relative state, eternal, uncreated, unchanging. Humans are subject to a relative state, (knowing the Tree of Good and Evil) and thus can be judged by morality. God is an absolute perfection and humans have no insight into absolute states. The concept of God is 100% abstraction.

This is Aristotle's god, not the God of scripture.

“In the beginning” refers to that eternal reality beyond time, a reality that transcends all creation, is changeless and placeless, and yet is the very essence and source of all that exists or can ever exist.

Says who?

There can be no such thing as "beyond time". It is a contradiction.

It is beyond time and space, beyond here or there, beyond up or down, hot or cold–beyond any duality or form there exists the “I am,” the single, indivisible, omnipresent, unfathomable “Word.” Within the absolute realm of the eternal “I am”, the Word exists without any need of expression or vocalization. It just is.

The only reason its unfathomable is because it's flatly irrational nonsense.

Contradictions do not exist, blueboy. If you think you've found one, check your premises. You'll find that at least one of them is false.

I really like how you frame the, "Word", as Logic.

Well, I can't take credit for it. It was something of a revelation the first time I was exposed to the notion myself.

God is the, "I am", transcending rational and moral. God is a state of perfection.

Nonsense. That is a blatant contradiction. That which is real cannot transcend the rational, by definition. Conforming one's mind to the limits of reality is all sound reason is. To transcend the rational is to dive head first into the absurd, the fanciful, the pretend universe of Alice in Wonderland where literally anything goes and nothing means anything.

In order for the, "Word" to become Manifest in the material realm the, "Word" must Manifest through a human form, the likes of Jesus and Noah and Moses, etc.

Nonsense. Literal nonsense.
God could not have created anything outside of use of reason. God Himself is Reason. Reason does not pertain only to man. If that were so then man would be the only real thing in existence. It would literally promote us above God and relegate God to the realm of fantasy and make-believe.

Clete

 

[Derf]

Similar to trying to say a clock 'changes.' It displays differently, but it is unchanging. Some would argue that 12:01 is different than 12:00 and I agree, but 'different' isn't change. It is rather 'aspect' already there. "Change" exacerbates theology because it causes confusion between 'different' and 'not the same being.' A clock is always a clock therefore, for an anatomy and function discussion of a clock, 'change' isn't helpful for important discussion. It confuses rather than helps. We all grasp better "aspect of what is already there" when it comes to clocks and it is equally better to discuss God's character and nature without "change."

Let me ask: Are you 'angry' at atrocity? Are you happy at the birth of a child? Loving toward your children and wife? All at the same time or only when you hear these words? Our emotion and attitude is 'responsive' to circumstance when we are immediately interacting and aware. A few Open Theists argue God is like this, but God aware of all things all at once. We have limited ability to pay attention and carry all things. In Christ, all things now, exist and hold together. His response to all things never changes because He is fully aware and not only capable, but essential for all things to exist thus a 'change' would signify that something is happening a-part from God which is impossible.

Yet His scriptures describe changes in His plans for people and nations in some cases, and scripture says these things are in response to what that person/nation does/did.

When doing theology, it is always advisable to recognize how we understand things differently than God and recognize that our capacity is limited. If we don't we would often come up with ideas that are wrong, because we try to apply the limitation to God.

Want? Am I to dictate to God Who He is and how He should respond?

That's mainly bluster on your part, since we're both trying to understand not so much about what God hasn't revealed, but what He has.

Does God cater to my sensibilities? Does He answer to me? Job's answer was "Stand silent and know that I am God." God will remain angry at sin because His nature is ever against it. The basic is this: I not only want God always mad at sin (as if I am anybody that needs God to answer to him/her, I'm not), I don't want my human frailties dictating to the God of the universe. God is God and I am not. He IS loving. He IS good. "How" isn't really a huge concern for me. I don't want a humanized God. I'm the one who is in desperate need of Him. He isn't less loving for my need, but has to rightly demand that I be Holy 'as He is holy.' The impetus is always not on a God Who has any need of change (He is perfect), but on me who has a LONG way to go.

Short answer: I don't want nor want to conceive of God reacting with the limited capacity of man. I'm even arguing for/from the Open paradigm of God 'knowing all that is possible.' It'd mean He is easily angry at sin, now. Easily pleased with the work of Christ in us, now. Your question seems to want God to be like man for man's sensibilities. I suppose, between the difference between man and God, there is a desire to bridge the gap but Christ does this, and without a need to be exactly like us. He can be angry at this very second, at sin, and loving toward you because of His capacity. It is 'infinitely' more capable to balance.

I believe we are caught in a confusion: We experience nothing but time. God does not. He 'is.' "Before Abraham was, I AM." This verse expresses a truth beyond man's ability to grasp: BOTH was and is, at the same time (or perhaps better appreciated, without time).

I don't have any trouble grasping that. Jesus affirmed that before Abraham existed, He existed as deity. The Pharisees had no trouble grasping it either.
John 8:59 KJV — Then took they up stones to cast at him

It is an expression that absolutely escapes man's ability to grasp God's existence beyond a time-line. I've attempted to explain this using lines and segments. A line must cross two points for man to be able to conceive it. The reality is that there are infinite lines that pass through any given point that to conceive, would likely cause brain matter to explode, in a similar way that Moses could not see God and live. It wasn't possible. Our God, in reality, is beyond our cognitive ability.

This is no doubt true that God is beyond our cognitive ability, but that doesn't mean we ignore or make mysterious those things which He reveals clearly to us.

Paul said 'we see through a glass darkly.' Scripture says one day 'know even as we are fully known.' These scriptures require we see limitation in our ability BUT if one grasps even a small inkling of what 'infinite' means, then limiting words begin to stop have meaning when compared to an infinite God. It isn't possible that God is only going forward in time. For instance: His past 'is still going' by eternal necessity. When the Father forsook the Son, it did reach into the eternal: It created long-lasting difference such that there was a quality to what Jesus did on the Cross for us that transcends a need for temporal language and the attempt actually diminishes the significance.

Says who?

It is just a human trying to grasp the infinite. While I think we have good minds and an ability to grasp the things of God, we will ALWAYS see through a glass darkly. Because of that, Open Theism always has fallen short of actually asking OR answering my big questions.

Maybe we need to revisit some of those questions of yours. I'd be willing to try, anyway.

"Man" isn't eternal BUT we our whole being is a reflection of His being. It is a logical loop: We are created 'in His image' and then He 'became' man, in His own image.' The emphasis is a God who reaches, who loves,

Who changes in so significant a way that He became a creature.

who digs in for us. I don't have to go down the Open paradigm to appreciate that.

Don't you? Maybe you would appreciate it even more if you did.

You could say this isn't a logical leap, OR that it was already a logical leap that Open Theism in no way shed an iota of difference for me.

That's because most people are practical Open Theists.

Judge Rightly mentioned something similar on the same page this one of yours is on.


Impassibility is simply stated in scriptures: "I change not." "Stand silent, and know I am God."

I don't see how that second one needs to be about impassibility. The first one is decidedly caveated in scripture.

In mathematics, I learned a sheet of paper represented a plane that had no measurement and extended without limit. I grasp without limit, but I cannot qualify the concept. Either one gets it or does not. God always was/is, for eternity. God doesn't change, philosophically, because there is nothing 'outside' or 'apart' from infinite.

Philosophically, right? since we don't understand infinite? Anytime you say we can't understand the infinite and then proceed to explain it to me makes me question your sincerity.

The language we have at that point even reaches beyond impassibility but scripture conveys God's nature as unchanging and even the Open Theist believes His nature is impassible. There is a difference, as per your previous question, between man's emotion/response and God's. We have great limitation thus generally only experience one emotion at a time, because we are only capable of focusing on one thing at a time. God presently sustains all things. His attention is simultaneous. Example: You can be praying right now, with very different concerns than I am, right now. God isn't confused and hears in clarity.

I'm not sure that Open Theism denies any of that. But don't you think that if God can keep straight all the different requests, he can also keep straight the responses to them? Responses--that's an Open Theism concept, as you admitted above.

You and I cannot, thus we react only to which conversation we happen to be paying attention to. God doesn't have this limitation. We don't have to jettison the Bible, but grasp how God is not like us and appreciate where there is difference.

I didn't realize jettisoning the Bible was even on the table.

Similar to a clock discussion: Aspect, not change. "From man to God" we view a change. "From God to man" a condition of consequences that will follow, thus an aspect of the choice of man. It is important again, to restate: Infinite means 'without number or quantification.' You cannot 'measure' infinite or eternal quality. It is why Paul says in Ephesians 1 to discover the 'height depth and breadth' of God's love which 'is immeasurable.' Paul is praying and encouraging us to come to a realization: Numbers are meaningless when trying to grasp the things of God. 12:01 is meaningless to grasping how much God loves us. When? Always. 12:01 is irrelevant. God's Word

How does that put a limit on things kings should be trying to understand?
Proverbs 25:2 KJV — It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

Yes, agree. I can certainly understand a lot of what God has given, but we also have to learn Job's lesson to 'stand silent and' simply 'know that I am God.' His next line is "I SHALL be exalted!" That's the duty of man. We are the creation yet we have a small sense of 'being gods' that I always wrestle with. In humility, I want to remember I am His and I am His created being FOR His good pleasure. Perhaps the answer to Clete's thread is "Humility" as an answer. If the thread points to the difference between God and us, then we'll appreciate God more at that point of an ah ha moment.

Jesus subjected Himself willingly, but we still have to be careful of theology that is finite-constrained in application to God lest we see God as a man at times, and not who He is.

I would think we need to be at least as careful when we dodge something due to the infiniteness of the answer, since we don't understand it well enough to know whether we need to dodge.

I do agree Jesus has made the Father accessible to us, but we yet have to be careful not to only conceive of God on a human level, even when considering His morality.

Is someone doing that? How would you know? Is it because you can tell the difference between conceiving God on a human level versus conceiving Him on some other level?

God is relational to time, in the same way He became a man. He sustains and interacts with creation. I have an aquarium. My hand is 'wet' any 'time' I put my hand in the water with my fish. God is the same. He interacts, but remember "all things are from Him and held together by Him" lest you have God 'part of creation' instead of being the all-in-all of everything and all.

Yet, when you draw your hand out, you don't suddenly see what your fish were doing yesterday

Isn't the Bible written in terms that we understand, which would normally not include infinitely unconstrained theology, or whatever the opposite would be.

Hit on this above. God is 'our' God. We are not His. I'm the creation but our understanding has to always work from our being finite and Him always always always being infinite, lest we conceive of Him ONLY in our image rather than we in His. There is great comfort in knowing we are to 'be like Him' when we see Him, for we shall 'see Him as He is.' It is a state of being, given in scripture, that definitely tells us our existence and perception is limited and has a ceiling. It is a good thing for the king to seek out a matter, I'm just ever mindful I'm the creation, He the Creator. It places Him in the driver-seat.

Again, I think this is merely bluster. Do you really think all open theists have God constraint to be a passenger? Why do you think that?

I believe we have a strong desire to be loved BUT, as I've learned what kind of person I am and how well I love, I'm EVER thankful He comes to me, to meet me at my need BUT, the plan is to bring ME back to a place where love isn't messed up by me. IOW, I find a LOT of comfort that He doesn't change. That He isn't given to whims. That His love already IS perfect. I get to go be a part of that rather than wallowing here in a much lesser version.

Ok. Why is that important here in this discussion? I would suggest that it is merely a way to end the conversation without having to address the points being made.

Heresy often means 'different' but it can also carry the idea of 'does damage to what we know of God's character/being.'

If something we "know" of God's character/being is ever wrong, doesn't some damage need to be done to it?

Many use it as a pejorative but I find it unhelpful. It is better to describe where we differ and explain what/which scriptures are in potential damage for the idea expressed.

Agreed.

But we should also determine which of our ideas aren't quite as well supported by scripture and allow the damage to be done to them.

Lon, I haven't really reviewed the conversation that went before, and some time has passed, so I hope I haven't just reiterated stuff in attempting to address your post.

 

[Derf]

Actually, it is we who are made in God's image, right?

Of course. But who actually became a man after being something else for all eternity past?

Genesis 1:26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”​

Why is it so surprising then to find that we are sufficiently similar to God so as to facilitate a relationship between us and Him? Wasn't that the point of God having created us in the first place?

Probably. It's hard to imagine God making a bottom-dwelling sea creature to have communion with, say, an eagle.

Calvinist and other Augustinians want to make God so transcendent as to not only be beyond relationship but beyond comprehension. And I mean that quite literally. Any conception of God that can be understood by any rationally thinking mind is an affront and an insult to God's transcendence such that one is forced to ask what was the point of God creating such a pathetically incapacitated creature such as mankind to begin with.

Yep...I've certainly seen that.

 

[Clete]

Of course. But who actually became a man after being something else for all eternity past?

Whomever that was, it certainly was not the immutable god of Aristotle, Augustine and Calvin.

Probably.

What other alternative to do see?

It's hard to imagine God making a bottom-dwelling sea creature to have communion with, say, an eagle.

Yep...I've certainly seen that.

I confess that I do not understand what you're saying here. The analogy doesn't seem to fit at all. How many bottom-dwelling sea creatures have been created by, and in the image of, eagles? And, by what standard are you implying that eagles are superior bottom-swelling sea creatures? Are they not both merely creatures both made by the same Creator? Is either more or less perfectly designed and suited to their environment and purpose than the other?

Clete