You give and take away

[Hans Deventer]

The other day I posted a song by Matt Redman, of which the last verse is:

You give and take away
You give and take away
My heart will choose to say
Lord, blessed be Your name

Now I always hated the idea that God "gives and takes away". I didn't want Him to be responsible for taking away, like when you read that "God in His good time took away our dear 6 year old daughter in a traffic accident". I don't believe that for one second!!!

Still, the idea of course comes from Job 1:21b - "The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; may the name of the LORD be praised."

How are we to read this verse?

BTW, I very much do like the idea that whatever happens, My heart will choose to say, Lord, blessed be Your name. (Though there is pain in the offering, as Redman sings elsewhere in the song).

[Brad Mercer]

I have had occasion to think about that concept over the years and I don't know whether I've come up with anything helpful or not. You have that verse in Job. Then there's Job 13:15 that says "though he slay me, yet will I trust (or hope) in him." C.S. Lewis shifts the thought just slightly to a perspective that's a little easier for me to wrap my mind around in a scene from "The Horse and His Boy", one of the Chronicles of Narnia. There are two talking Narnian horses and two children raised in Calormen, which worships a cruel God. Narnians have Aslan, who represents Christ. Aslan is a lion. The children know nothing of him. The mare isn't confident enough to be too assertive about who Aslan is, but the proud stallion is quite certain that Aslan can't be literally a lion, he's not literally incarnate. He is more a personification of ideals, or at least more distant and untouchable and safe than a lion.

Suddenly Aslan appears and they are all afraid, especially the stallion. Finally, though, the mare timidly approaches him, still uncertain of his plans for her, but irresistably drawn to someone more warm and strong and alive and compellling than anyone she's ever encountered. She says to him: "I would rather be eaten by you than fed by anyone else."

Now, of course, he has no intention of eating her. His strength is always for her. His intention is to love he and heal her and protect her and guide her.

While the Old Testament certainly seems a lot more comfortable than the New Testament with the idea that God directly causes everything, large and small, good and bad, I don't see the main issue as about the power or sovereignty of God, but more about the character of God.

As I increasingly allow him to reveal himself to me and love me, I find increasingly that his love attracts me to him more compellingly than my fear alienates me from him.

I think that's the most important thing verses like that have to say to me right now. God is present with me in every circumstance, no matter how terrible, and his love is utterly trustworthy, no matter what. Even if it was him who took it all away, even if he did eat me, even if he chooses not to spare my life, no circumstance can dissuade me from trusting his love for me and his character as love.

I am, as you may imagine, frantically struggling to re-learn that lesson these days. I have good and bad moments. Super-Christian moments of sugary sainthood and moments plummeting into the abyss, scrambling to find a foothold with nothing but fearful things on every hand. I had one of those latter moments on the way home from work this afternoon, and Roland and I cried and talked together and worked to reaffirm that God, our miracle-working God, will still be God and love will still be enough, no matter what.

I thought as we neared the end of our conversation of Psalm 46:10, that says "be still and know that I am God" and I heard it as a promise in life and in death, of the power, the love and the utter, absolute trustworthiness of God.

I can't make more sense of those verses than that.

Love,
Brad

[Hans Deventer]

As I increasingly allow him to reveal himself to me and love me, I find increasingly that his love attracts me to him more compellingly than my fear alienates me from him.

Thank you. Yes, I think that might be the deepest meaning of Job's words, or at least, if he didn't mean them that way, I would.

And as to the emotions: you're human, Brad. Our Lord Himself wasn't overjoyed to face His trials either. He had big struggles too.

[Dale Cozby]

Today is my mother's. 79th birthday, if she were still alive. She was taken from us by a tragic accident 3 years ago. Although she lingered in the hospital for 3 weeks. They were hard to bear.

During that time many prayers were offered for her recovery. In the end she succombed to an infection just prior to her going to a rehab hospital.

I don't believe for a minute that the accident was God's will or the infection and suffering either. I lay that squarely on the sin of man. In fact all the sin and evil that exists or has ever existed in the world does so because of man's freewill and his misuse of it.

I do believe that even as we were praying for her recovery she was most likely praying to go home. Which she did. She never wanted to be a burden to her family or to be lame or mute, both a by-product of her accident.
So, I believe God took her away from the suffering and the pain, He did not take her from us. We miss her and always will until that day when He takes us to be where He is.

God has taken many other things away from me over the years, it is easier to deal with Him removing temptaions and trials, than it is when He removes relationships from us. So I trust that He knows better and that in the end the "taking away" will be the best for me, in this corrupt and sinful world.

I "take away" candy from my 3yr old and he thinks I am being mean too.
I understand why, he doesn't, at least not yet. So it is with God and us.

[Hans Deventer]

Dale, I am really trying to understand your thoughts. Like you, I don't believe God made that accident happen. But you also wrote. "So, I believe God took her away from the suffering and the pain, He did not take her from us."

I have trouble separating these two things. Can you elaborate a little more on how this works in your experience?

[Dale Cozby]

Dale, I am really trying to understand your thoughts. Like you, I don't believe God made that accident happen. But you also wrote. "So, I believe God took her away from the suffering and the pain, He did not take her from us."

I have trouble separating these two things. Can you elaborate a little more on how this works in your experience?

I have come to the reality that God was not trying to seperate her from me. He was not trying to deny the prayers of the family to help her. But rather, He was answering her prayers, He was completing His work in her. Even as Jesus did not wish to depart His disciples or bear the cross, he nevertheless looked foward to the completion of His work on earth. He did not look forward to the cup he had to drink but the he did look forward to the joy set before Him. To have one, He had to endure the other.
He knew that the comforter could not come unless He left. Likewise, God took her to the place of peace rather than leave her here with us for a few more years. He was fullfulling her life's goal and desires and prayers instead of my selfish prayer to keep her with me.

Sometimes the act of giving to one requires a taking away from another too.
His motive I am convinced was one of giving to her not taking from us, and I have the firm hope the parting is only a temporary one.

One man prays for rain and another prays for sunshine based on thier own needs and wants. But God is the one who decides what is best for both.

[Hans Deventer]

One man prays for rain and another prays for sunshine based on thier own needs and wants. But God is the one who decides what is best for both.

OK, I understand. Thanks.

[Kevin Rector]

I have had occasion to think about that concept over the years and I don't know whether I've come up with anything helpful or not. You have that verse in Job. Then there's Job 13:15 that says "though he slay me, yet will I trust (or hope) in him." C.S. Lewis shifts the thought just slightly to a perspective that's a little easier for me to wrap my mind around in a scene from "The Horse and His Boy", one of the Chronicles of Narnia. There are two talking Narnian horses and two children raised in Calormen, which worships a cruel God. Narnians have Aslan, who represents Christ. Aslan is a lion. The children know nothing of him. The mare isn't confident enough to be too assertive about who Aslan is, but the proud stallion is quite certain that Aslan can't be literally a lion, he's not literally incarnate. He is more a personification of ideals, or at least more distant and untouchable and safe than a lion.

Suddenly Aslan appears and they are all afraid, especially the stallion. Finally, though, the mare timidly approaches him, still uncertain of his plans for her, but irresistably drawn to someone more warm and strong and alive and compellling than anyone she's ever encountered. She says to him: "I would rather be eaten by you than fed by anyone else."

Now, of course, he has no intention of eating her. His strength is always for her. His intention is to love he and heal her and protect her and guide her.

While the Old Testament certainly seems a lot more comfortable than the New Testament with the idea that God directly causes everything, large and small, good and bad, I don't see the main issue as about the power or sovereignty of God, but more about the character of God.

As I increasingly allow him to reveal himself to me and love me, I find increasingly that his love attracts me to him more compellingly than my fear alienates me from him.

I think that's the most important thing verses like that have to say to me right now. God is present with me in every circumstance, no matter how terrible, and his love is utterly trustworthy, no matter what. Even if it was him who took it all away, even if he did eat me, even if he chooses not to spare my life, no circumstance can dissuade me from trusting his love for me and his character as love.

I am, as you may imagine, frantically struggling to re-learn that lesson these days. I have good and bad moments. Super-Christian moments of sugary sainthood and moments plummeting into the abyss, scrambling to find a foothold with nothing but fearful things on every hand. I had one of those latter moments on the way home from work this afternoon, and Roland and I cried and talked together and worked to reaffirm that God, our miracle-working God, will still be God and love will still be enough, no matter what.

I thought as we neared the end of our conversation of Psalm 46:10, that says "be still and know that I am God" and I heard it as a promise in life and in death, of the power, the love and the utter, absolute trustworthiness of God.

I can't make more sense of those verses than that.

Love,
Brad

I don't cry easily. But this post brought tears to my eyes.

[Randy Wise]

The other day I posted a song by Matt Redman, of which the last verse is:
You give and take away
You give and take away
My heart will choose to say
Lord, blessed be Your nameNow I always hated the idea that God "gives and takes away". I didn't want Him to be responsible for taking away, like when you read that "God in His good time took away our dear 6 year old daughter in a traffic accident". I don't believe that for one second!!!

Still, the idea of course comes from Job 1:21b - "The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; may the name of the LORD be praised."

How are we to read this verse?

BTW, I very much do like the idea that whatever happens, My heart will choose to say, Lord, blessed be Your name. (Though there is pain in the offering, as Redman sings elsewhere in the song).

My 2 year old nephew drowned in a pool a couple of years ago. I don't think for a minute that was what God intended for his life. If you examined the facts it was a sequence of human error. My sister went upstairs to gather the wash. The garage door that was always kept shut was left open that day. The community pool was across the street that my nephew was in the habit of going to with his parents. On that day the pool gate that had a spring to keep it shut was pried open by workers that were working on the building. You can imagine the rest. Very painful for the family to deal with. In this day and age we are clothed with mortal flesh, which is subject to accidents and illnesses. In this the rich and poor and the righteous and the unrighteous are all equals . In the end we all meet are maker. We as people of faith will be expecting a joyful meeting with a smiling Jesus who will have kind and gentle words for us as He presents us to the Father and the family of God in heaven. I see Jobs great faith in God bearing up even under extreme loss. Like Paul who praised God even in the mist of a jail bound in chains. I think that is the greater message in the verse above -Jobs faith in God.

Randy

[Hans Deventer]

I see Jobs great faith in God bearing up even under extreme loss. Like Paul who praised God even in the mist of a jail bound in chains. I think that is the greater message in the verse above -Jobs faith in God.

Yes. Thanks, Randy.

[Anthony Livolsi]

I wonder if God does not "take," but rather "receives."

"Taking," to me, implies a heavy-handedness, an acting upon. "Receiving" bespeaks the very hospitality of Heaven, an acting for.

[Hans Deventer]

I wonder if God does not "take," but rather "receives."

"Taking," to me, implies a heavy-handedness, an acting upon. "Receiving" bespeaks the very hospitality of Heaven, an acting for.

First, welcome to NazNet, Anthony!

When you look into my heart, I'd love for the Scriptures to read as you suggest. However, within the context of the book of Job, I do think Job really meant that God indeed took his children, his health, his possessions from him. The Old Testament attributed much to God that we would not so easily do today. Like 1 Samuel 16:15-16, 23 where it is said that an "evil spirit of God" tormented Saul.

After reading the comments, I tend to leave the remark as it is and focus on the miracle of Job: the fact that whether or not he was correct in ascribing the terrible events he experienced to God, even while he did, he still praised God! That goes deep, very deep indeed. That is the kind of faith I would like to have. For my opinions about what God does or does not do may also be mistaken at some point. We aren't saved by correct beliefs, but by trusting in God. And that is was Job clearly did.

[Anthony Livolsi]

Thanks for the welcome and a beautiful response.

I certainly do not want to sanitize Job's sentiments; they are at once convicting and comforting to be sure.

Job frightens me, however, perhaps partly because I know I am no more immune to trials and temptations than he, and because I sadly suspect that, his witness notwithstanding, I will yet come up short.

God offends me; for one thing, his sovereignty is apologetically inexpedient. Also, charges of capriousness still unnerve me.

This is my immaturity, I'm sure: I would rather be offended by God than be frightened by God. Predictably, then, I am more interested in meddling with God's motives than submitting to his motives--whatever they may prove to be.

So for now, I will console myself accordingly (after all, both the Hebrew and the Greek can read--mmmmmmaybe--either "take" or "receive"). Your word, though, is very well-received.

[Hans Deventer]

God offends me; for one thing, his sovereignty is apologetically inexpedient. Also, charges of capriousness still unnerve me.
This is my immaturity, I'm sure

I don't know. In the early centuries of Christianity, apologists started interpreting the Old Testament in an allegoric manner, to make it more acceptable to Hellenistic philosophy. But I'd say we'd better try to deal with the capriousness of the stories and the image of God it displays.

I would rather be offended by God than be frightened by God. Predictably, then, I am more interested in meddling with God's motives than submitting to his motives--whatever they may prove to be.

You've written some words to chew on!

Thanks for responding.

[Randy Wise]

Thanks for the welcome and a beautiful response.


This is my immaturity, I'm sure: I would rather be offended by God than be frightened by God. Predictably, then, I am more interested in meddling with God's motives than submitting to his motives--whatever they may prove to be.


Should God then test your motives?

Randy

[Gina Stevenson]

Should God then test your motives?

Randy

Huh? But He already knows them, Randy! :fav03 :rolleyes: :fav03

[Dale Cozby]

In a nutshell: (I hope I make this clear in a few words)
At the heart of this issue is the sovereignty of God. If God is all powerful and all knowing, and evil happens, then God is ultimately responsible since he had the knowledge and power to prevent it from happening and chose not to. He would therefore have also known beforehand that Adam would sin if the circumstances were right for it to happen and therefore God can be viewed as the author of sin too.

I believe this is a narrow view and leads us to the wrong conclusions and confusion.
It fails to take into account the great gift that God bestowed upon man. when he made us in His image. Freewill.

HE loved us so much that he would lay down His sovereignty and allow us to sin(the ultimate misuse of freewill) and therefore have to make sacrifice(lay down his sovereignty again in the person of Jesus) to restore us. He did all this knowing that we would sin and yet he still let us!!

God allows all this evil to exist in the world so we can exercise our freewill to love Him as He loved us. 2 Peter 3:9

In the case of Job, HE removed His hand of protection and allowed evil to happen so that Job could truly love God in his freewill. Something Satan had accused God with and said would not happen if God didn't keep protecting him. Satan basically said if you let Job exercise his freewill in hardship he will turn from you.

I believe Job gives us a beautiful story about man's ability to love God with his freewill, apart from God having to manipulate us into it with blessings and curses. Job already knew God when the evil struck. God had revealed himself to Job before, but in the hardship of life Job revealed his true heart to God and to everyone else as well.

I believe we have it in our nature to love as God first loved us. Because we are created in His image. When the chains of the sin nature are dealt with, we can truly love God back. Romans 6:21-23

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

This is a very interesting convervation. Many times, as we are suffering, we grow much closer to God. Notice in Phil. 3:10 where it speaks of the fellowship of His sufferings. Ordinarily, we do not think of suffering as fellowship. But, you know what? If one is suffering, and accepting it as God's will--in a sweet spirit, we seem to grow so close to God. It is as if we are his pets. Many have experienced this. Brad and Karen, Hannie and Han, etal. are going through this right now. You may feel that you have a line straight through to the throne that others do not have. Scroll on down.
But, there are things that bother me concerning the story of Job. On the human level, there seems no way that he came out with things better than they were before. New children do not make up for the ones you lost. It did not for me. Also, I have a problem with Romans 8:28. Except for spiritually, which I know is vitally important, a number of things have happened to me, that there seemed to be no way, that it could have been for my good. I also, prayed, "Lord, though you slay me, yet will I serve thee." But, it was so hard to live those months that I could not feel him anywhere. But, I still came through, feeling that I am one of His special pets. Scroll down.
Dwayne's 91 year old mother lays up in the nursing home, with one leg and a toe badly infected on her other foot, thinking that she is God's pet. She called, and told him that she had found her calling--to minister to others there. His ways are beyond our understanding.

[Hans Deventer]

But, there are things that bother me concerning the story of Job. On the human level, there seems no way that he came out with things better than they were before. New children do not make up for the ones you lost. It did not for me.

You are right, they don't. But I guess it comes down to the reason of our existence. Job said at the end, "My ears had heard of you but now my eyes have seen you." And isn't getting to know God what we are living for? Jesus said, it is eternal life itself (John 17:3)

Also, I have a problem with Romans 8:28. Except for spiritually, which I know is vitally important, a number of things have happened to me, that there seemed to be no way, that it could have been for my good.

Agreed, but I don't think Paul limits the "good" to this life. In fact, he says elsewhere that if only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men. (1 Cor 15:19)

Not everything will "work out just fine" in this life.

[Anthony Livolsi]

HE loved us so much that he would lay down His sovereignty and allow us to sin(the ultimate misuse of freewill) and therefore have to make sacrifice(lay down his sovereignty again in the person of Jesus) to restore us. He did all this knowing that we would sin and yet he still let us!!

I feel like I can maybe tease out a problem here, but in the way of an answer, I've got nothing...

The idea that God divests himself of his omnipotence, or self-limits his freedom so that we might, in turn, be free, inevitably pits human agency against divine agency. Freedom is seen as a sort of zero-sum game; there is only so much to go around, and so God and humanity are always tug-of-warring for more. (Or, as in your post, God just "gives in.")

The presuppositions behind this "laying down of sovereignity" sort of rub me the wrong way. To suppose an equality, even such a sense of similarity, between human freedom and divine freedom seems a bit off. God and Creation can't be caught up in a battle of wills, namely because I'm not sure that God and Creation even exist on the same spectrum. In other words, such a "battle" seems ontologically impossible.

Instead of seeing Jesus as laying down his sovereignity (I'm not sure I would read kenosis this way--though certainly others can), I would find in Christ the dramatic intersection of the fullness of God's freedom and the fullness of human freedom. While we can only understand God's sovereignity as over and against that of our own, Jesus holds both together in his hypostasis.

Again, I'm not sure that I have actually said much here. I apologize for the incoherence.

[Kevin Rector]

I feel like I can maybe tease out a problem here, but in the way of an answer, I've got nothing...

The idea that God divests himself of his omnipotence, or self-limits his freedom so that we might, in turn, be free, inevitably pits human agency against divine agency. Freedom is seen as a sort of zero-sum game; there is only so much to go around, and so God and humanity are always tug-of-warring for more. (Or, as in your post, God just "gives in.")

The presuppositions behind this "laying down of sovereignity" sort of rub me the wrong way. To suppose an equality, even such a sense of similarity, between human freedom and divine freedom seems a bit off. God and Creation can't be caught up in a battle of wills, namely because I'm not sure that God and Creation even exist on the same spectrum. In other words, such a "battle" seems ontologically impossible.

Instead of seeing Jesus as laying down his sovereignty (I'm not sure I would read kenosis this way--though certainly others can), I would find in Christ the dramatic intersection of the fullness of God's freedom and the fullness of human freedom. While we can only understand God's sovereignty as over and against that of our own, Jesus holds both together in his hypostasis.

Again, I'm not sure that I have actually said much here. I apologize for the incoherence.

I don't think you were incoherent, in fact I think you brought an important point to the discussion and in general I agree with you.

God's does not cease being sovereign by granting us the gift of free will precisely because of the hope of the eschaton. Our free will is tremendously limited as we are tremendously limited. To call it free will is even a bit presumptuous on our part. We have the right to reject living in God's kingdom, but that is even not "freedom" in the sense of divine freedom because ultimately God decides what happens to us when it's all said and done.

[Dale Cozby]

To call it free will is even a bit presumptuous on our part. We have the right to reject living in God's kingdom, but that is even not "freedom" in the sense of divine freedom because ultimately God decides what happens to us when it's all said and done.

My wife gave me a Garfield card when we were dating that said:

It's your choice...Love me or leave me!
Inside it said: make the wrong choice and I'll break your arm!

If God's uses His sovereignty to over ride our choices then we have no freewill.
God established heaven and hell, he is the one that laid down the laws of the universe, the conditions of salvation, and He is ultimately our judge.
But He doesn't use His sovereignty to make our choices for us. He doesn't decide for us who will and will not go to heaven and hell apart from our freewill choice or His laws or His mercy. Justice will be served, unless we repent and throw ourselves on His mercy, which he offers freely.

We know that God's will is for all to be saved. see 2 Peter 3:9 If God doesn't want anyone to perish, then why will some perish if God is all powerful? Why will anyone end up in hell? If God wants all to come to repentence and everlasting life, then why would there even be a place like hell or the lake of fire at all? He would just make sure no one perished and make sure His will was supreme in all things. How could a loving God send anyone to hell? Why would He?
The true horror of hell is knowing that it isn't God who ultimately put us there, but our own choice to be seperated from Him. That is how powerful our freewill is and that is how powerful God's love for us is, that even though His will is that no one would perish, He would allow us to choose such a place over Him, rather than force us to love Him back.

[Randy Wise]

I feel like I can maybe tease out a problem here, but in the way of an answer, I've got nothing...

The idea that God divests himself of his omnipotence, or self-limits his freedom so that we might, in turn, be free, inevitably pits human agency against divine agency. Freedom is seen as a sort of zero-sum game; there is only so much to go around, and so God and humanity are always tug-of-warring for more. (Or, as in your post, God just "gives in.")

The presuppositions behind this "laying down of sovereignity" sort of rub me the wrong way. To suppose an equality, even such a sense of similarity, between human freedom and divine freedom seems a bit off. God and Creation can't be caught up in a battle of wills, namely because I'm not sure that God and Creation even exist on the same spectrum. In other words, such a "battle" seems ontologically impossible.

Instead of seeing Jesus as laying down his sovereignity (I'm not sure I would read kenosis this way--though certainly others can), I would find in Christ the dramatic intersection of the fullness of God's freedom and the fullness of human freedom. While we can only understand God's sovereignity as over and against that of our own, Jesus holds both together in his hypostasis.

Again, I'm not sure that I have actually said much here. I apologize for the incoherence.


God is One and is Spirit. How can God set aside His own Glory His own Being? He cannot. When God came down to the mountain top to speak to Moses the atmosphere was greatly disrupted by God's Glory. The creation had no place to put it. In revelation when God comes to dwell with man God will make a new Heaven and a new earth to handle that Glory. A everlasting kingdom. So the need would be to send someone else who is a reflection of Gods Being. That individual could set that reflection aside for the task at hand. It would therefore please God to allow His fullness to dwell with the individual who would be sent. The firstborn over all creation.
To those in Judaism who state Israel is Gods firstborn, reply, Gods Firstborn would be a Being not a people and such a Being would state "before Abraham was born, I AM!"

Colossians 1:15 NIV
Colossians 1:19 NIV
Hebrews 12:23 NIV

Randy

[Anthony Livolsi]

Randy, I 'm not sure that I'm tracking with you here, but I think I think that I probably think what you think. Ha.

I do NOT believe that God can shelve his sovereignity--or his glory, or any other of his attributes for that matter.

[Anthony Livolsi]

He doesn't decide for us who will and will not go to heaven and hell apart from our freewill choice or His laws or His mercy. Justice will be served, unless we repent and throw ourselves on His mercy, which he offers freely.

We know that God's will is for all to be saved. If God doesn't want anyone to perish, then why will some perish if God is all powerful? Why will anyone end up in hell? If God wants all to come to repentence and everlasting life, then why would there even be a place like hell or the lake of fire at all? He would just make sure no one perished and make sure His will was supreme in all things. How could a loving God send anyone to hell? Why would He?
The true horror of hell is knowing that it isn't God who ultimately put us there, but our own choice to be seperated from Him. That is how powerful our freewill is and that is how powerful God's love for us is, that even though His will is that no one would perish, He would allow us to choose such a place over Him, rather than force us to love Him back.

Well, now God sounds slightly schizophrenic in that, though he is most fundamentally mercy-minded, his stubborn justice-complex still stands in the way.

I'm not sure that you can carve up God's attributes like a pot roast. What if God's justice is not opposed to, not over-and-against, God's mercy, but rather is God's mercy? (I'm wanting to argue for some semblence of ontological unity within the Godhead...)

For all the ways in which you critique Calvinist logic, you yet seem inadvertantly beholden to it: You make implicit distinctions between God's desires and God's decrees. What he really wants is for all dogs to go to heaven, but because silly sinners force his hand, he works against his wishes and, well, you know the rest.

[Dale Cozby]

I'm wanting to argue for some semblence of ontological unity within the Godhead... My ...such big college words.

Are you saying you feel that you need to put God into a nice neat package you can understand? Sort of get Him all figured out like a "systematic theology"? Funny, I always thought those words together were an oxymoron.

I believe God is much bigger than we will ever be able to easily define: His nature, His purposes, His Reasons, etc....now we see through a mirror darkly....sort of thing.

You make implicit distinctions between God's desires and God's decrees. I am sorry, it has been a few years since I took any classes on this stuff. Could you please show in my posts where I did this? "implicit" is such a vague term, open to such subjective conjecture. Sort of what you assume I am saying when I am not saying it.

For all the ways in which you critique Calvinist logic, you yet seem inadvertantly beholden to it You need to show me where I am being Calvinistic "inadvertantly"? I thought I was being far from Calvinistic.

Well, now God sounds slightly schizophrenic in that, though he is most fundamentally mercy-minded, his stubborn justice-complex still stands in the way. I am not sure how to respond to this. Are you making a statement or accusing? Please feel free to elaborate some more.

[Gina Stevenson]

... but I see that time is past, so I just have to do "quote," and then add on.

Huh? But He already knows them, Randy! :fav03 :rolleyes: :fav03

However ... in spite of His knowing our motives, sometimes He knows them better than we ourselves, methinks. Recalling now---as I'm sure some others here can attest to---an instance where I surprised even myself (first time in a long time, but I did), and was humbled several years ago (just months after Danny had died, & someone said something insensitive ... akin to "Snap out of it!" when it was too fresh for that). Not thinking I had in me such thoughts/motives when responding to this hurt, seeing it was a step forward ... learning to watch even more carefully my responses to hurtful things said/done.

So, sometimes I think He allows certain things for us to learn yet more about ourselves.

[Anthony Livolsi]

My ...such big college words.

I'm sorry about that... the only substitute for "ontological" I can think of is "is-ness," and I'm not sure that makes any more sense.

Are you saying you feel that you need to put God into a nice neat package you can understand? Sort of get Him all figured out like a "systematic theology"? Funny, I always thought those words together were an oxymoron.

And you are far from alone in finding "systematic" and "theology" to be quite at odds! In fact, Karl Barth (and I along with him) share your sentiments; he argues that theology must be determined by the "kingly freedom of the Word of God," and thus not ever confined within a closed, coherent system. Barth believes systematic theology to be about as good as "wooden iron..." can I get an AMEN?

To that end, "figuring God out" is not an aspiration of mine; I won't make problems to be solved out of what are more truly mysteries to be treasured. This, then, explains the "ontological unity" thing... When wrestling with the (supposed) disconnect between justice and mercy, it's easier to understand them as attributes in antagonism--one as being counter-balanced by the other--than to see them as simply one and the same.

It isn't that God wants to show mercy but his justice obliges him otherwise. Rather, God is mercy; God is justice. In other words, God's justice and mercy cannot, at least so I would say, be understood as discrepant internal dispositions each pulling him in different directions. If that were the case, God would be emotionally unstable.

I'm simply suggesting that we not project our own psychological turmoil back onto God.


I am sorry, it has been a few years since I took any classes on this stuff. Could you please show in my posts where I did this? "implicit" is such a vague term, open to such subjective conjecture. Sort of what you assume I am saying when I am not saying it.

Sure: God desires that none should perish, but he still decrees that some will perish.

Now, obviously, you work around this very well; I think you suggested that the true horror of hell is knowing that we, not God, make the choice. In this way, God desires salvation, but humanity can decree destruction. This softens the blow, takes a little heat off God, but essentially still says the same thing: people go to hell, and God does not get what God always wants.

You need to show me where I am being Calvinistic "inadvertantly"? I thought I was being far from Calvinistic.

I didn't say that you were being Calvinistic, but rather that you were beholden to Calvinist logic; that's important. The freewill/predestination debate does not make sense without placing in opposition the very attributes of God which I have suggested we do not place in opposition.

In protecting freewill from the robotic puppet-mastering of predestination, you essentially buy into the Calvinist presupposition that conditional and unconditional election are mutually exclusive. I'm wanting to suggest that this a both/and, rather than an either/or thing.

[Dale Cozby]

Rather, God is mercy; God is justice. In other words, God's justice and mercy cannot, at least so I would say, be understood as discrepant internal dispositions each pulling him in different directions. If that were the case, God would be emotionally unstable.

I'm simply suggesting that we not project our own psychological turmoil back onto God.
Genesis 6:6 1 Chronicles 21:15
1 Samuel 15:11 Hosea 13:11 Luke 13:34

Are you suggesting that God is too high and mighty to feel the emotions he gave to us? Emotional and psychological turmoil is ever present between God's justice and His mercy.
The Bible is full of God's emotional states as He relates to the exercise of man's freewill.

His holiness demands justice, but His holiness demands mercy too.
But His emotions are what they are, because of man, not inspite of man. That is the nature of relationships, when two freewill agents interact. God and Man(created in His image) struggling with each other. No wonder he changed Jacob's name to Israel.

IF you use the definition for "turmoil: of disorder or chaos, then I would agree with you. But if we use the definition of "harrassing labor" then I would say God experiences turmoil over His creation.
That is why Jesus had such a struggle in the garden. He knew what He had to do, but still didn't look forward to it.

[Randy Wise]

... but I see that time is past, so I just have to do "quote," and then add on.



However ... in spite of His knowing our motives, sometimes He knows them better than we ourselves, methinks. Recalling now---as I'm sure some others here can attest to---an instance where I surprised even myself (first time in a long time, but I did), and was humbled several years ago (just months after Danny had died, & someone said something insensitive ... akin to "Snap out of it!" when it was too fresh for that). Not thinking I had in me such thoughts/motives when responding to this hurt, seeing it was a step forward ... learning to watch even more carefully my responses to hurtful things said/done.

So, sometimes I think He allows certain things for us to learn yet more about ourselves.

Well I just thought if someone was going to test the motives of a Holy God maybe God would test theirs as well. :)

Randy

[Anthony Livolsi]

Are you suggesting that God is too high and mighty to feel the emotions he gave to us?

Yes.

(Although, for the record, this is not my suggestion; in univocally proclaiming the impassibility of God, the Church Fathers beat me to it by about two-thousand years. Apollinaris, for instance, was more outspoken than even I. He wrote: "Anyone who introduces passion into the divine power is atheistic." Ouch! Later, Anselm would write: "The divine nature is impassible, and it can in no sense be brought down from its loftiness.")

The notion that God "feels" like we feel is without historical-theological precedent.

Emotional and psychological turmoil is ever present between God's justice and His mercy.

Again, the last thing I need is an internally disjointed Deity. If God's "inner-life" is as tumultuous as you suppose, I think he ought to spend less time worrying about my problems and, with perhaps some psychotherapy, start taking care of his own.

The Bible is full of God's emotional states as He relates to the exercise of man's freewill.

The Bible contains anthropomorphic analogies... analogies.

Several of the verses to which you directed me suggest that God "was grieved." The Hebrew there is nhm which means, among other things, to repent from evil. (See Jonah 3:10, 4:2, 2 Samuel 24:16, and 1 Chronicles 21:15 and note that most English translations soften the text from "evil," which is quite forthright and explicit in the Hebrew, to "destruction," "calamity," etc...)

I will believe that God "repents" when you believe that God is "evil."

But His emotions are what they are, because of man, not inspite of man. That is the nature of relationships, when two freewill agents interact. God and Man(created in His image) struggling with each other. No wonder he changed Jacob's name to Israel.

This is just divine co-dependency. God needs humanity just as much as humanity needs God. That is not a respectful, loving God who values human freedom, that is a helpless, pathetic God who is created by us in much the same way that we were created by him.

And again, I do not believe that I am a freewill agent in the same sense that God is a freewill agent. We are not equals. God is God. I am Creation. "Who are you, O man, to talk back to God?"

[Hans Deventer]

Yes.

(Although, for the record, this is not my suggestion; in univocally proclaiming the impassibility of God, the Church Fathers beat me to it by about two-thousand years. Apollinaris, for instance, was more outspoken than even I. He wrote: "Anyone who introduces passion into the divine power is atheistic." Ouch! Later, Anselm would write: "The divine nature is impassible, and it can in no sense be brought down from its loftiness.")

The notion that God "feels" like we feel is without historical-theological precedent."

You may want to start to read some books by folks like Clark Pinnock and John Sanders and find out that no matter what theologians through time, heavily influenced by Plato more than the Bible, have said, the Bible itself does speak about God's emotions quite strongly.

To me the key issuea here is that people used to say these are anthropomorphisms. But Sanders et al argue quite convincingly that we have no higher revelation than the Scriptures and thus we cannot judge by any other revelation that these would be anthropomorphisms. I guess Anselm knew better than the Scriptures, or at least, he thought he did. He was wrong though.

[Anthony Livolsi]

I've read Pinnock's Most Moved Mover and The Scripture Principle, though not in its most recently updated version. Like most openly-theistic, "process-ish" theologians, he is appealing, but not compelling.

My "orthodoxy" is not from lack of exposure to trendier alternatives; I just have a hard time with heresy... (Just Kidding!)

[Hans Deventer]

My "orthodoxy" is not from lack of exposure to trendier alternatives; I just have a hard time with heresy... (Just Kidding!)

Ah, we agree again! My hard time is with the Greek philosophy that issued in too many heresies. :basic05

[Dale Cozby]

God needs humanity just as much as humanity needs God. That is not a respectful, loving God who values human freedom, that is a helpless, pathetic God who is created by us in much the same way that we were created by him. Hmm.. I don't believe I ever said God needed man. I believe He is moved by man. If He is not, then prayer is meaningless, repentence is meaningless too. Why pray if God has already decided what to do? Why repent if God has already decided who will go to hell and heaven?
If you believe that God is not influenced by the choices of man, then you must be very calvinistic in theology. He has already predestined some to salvation and others to damnation then. All of His own sovereign choice regardless of what man does or does not do.

I believe it is you who are trying to create an either/or God. Either He is Sovereign or He is pathetic. Sorry that isn't the choices.

He IS sovereign and HE is emotional. Emotions do not make God weak, it makes Him truly God. A Supreme Spirit capable of loving and hating rather than a hard and fast system of laws.

Why do you suppose HE(the great I AM) became a man? And in the person of Jesus, did he have emotions? "Jesus wept" so did this make Him less God than before? Was He weak for showing His emotions? Or did He not really have emotions, was He just putting on a show for the humans?

[Hans Deventer]

He IS sovereign and HE is emotional. Emotions do not make God weak, it makes Him truly God. A Supreme Spirit capable of loving and hating rather than a hard and fast system of laws.

Why do you suppose HE(the great I AM) became a man? And in the person of Jesus, did he have emotions? "Jesus wept" so did this make Him less God than before? Was He weak for showing His emotions? Or did He not really have emotions, was He just putting on a show for the humans?

Dale, thanks for you input and again, we agree completely! Where ever will this lead us? :basic03

[Dale Cozby]

And again, I do not believe that I am a freewill agent in the same sense that God is a freewill agent. We are not equals. God is God. I am Creation. "Who are you, O man, to talk back to God?"

Good I believe that too. Just because I have freewill doesn't make me equal to God. Don't think I ever said that. It is part of being made in His image.

I believe that God has given us many of His qualities, but we are certainly very finite beings just the same.

But you bring up a good point from Romans.
Here is other verses from there: "It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy." AND "For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all." AND "Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again."

Mercy = unmerited favor; the discretionary power of a judge to pardon;

He doesn't have to show us mercy, He chose to do so because He loves us. That doesn't make Him weak, it makes Him God.

"And so we know and rely on the love God has for us.
God is love. "

[Roland Hearn]

Dale,
You are doing a pretty good job with this. An unemotional God is not capable of relationship and is therefore distant. He is not constrained to do good and right by conflicting emotions that we mortals may struggle with but He, none the less, is portrayed throughout scripture as a God that experiences what we experience. In fact that isn't anthropomorphism it is recognition that we are created in His image.
I am not sure I agree one hundred percent with the assumption that He didn't have to show mercy but I like where you get to. I think by His nature He is compelled to love and therefore mercy.

[Anthony Livolsi]

Hmm.. I don't believe I ever said God needed man. I believe He is moved by man.

You said that "God's emotions are what they are because of man." Have I misquoted you? Though I'm not sure how to read this any other way save causally, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Nevertheless...

Quick, Dale--Move God!

You see, I'm not sure this even makes sense.
We would never literally ascribe to God a human hand or foot, though the Bible clearly mentions these members by name. These anthropomorphisms represent the ancients' best pre-modern attempts at relating to a God wholly other than themselves. Interestingly though, our own pop-process theology now commends the ascription to God of human neuro-chemical exchanges within the amygdala: emotions. Although our psychological anthropomorphisms are more sophisticated to be sure, they are anthropomorphisms nonetheless. As such, they represent but another round of sorry attempts, this time by more enlightened modernists, at relating to a God with whom we cannot naturally relate.

If He is not, then prayer is meaningless... Why pray if God has already decided what to do?

Well, I don't pray. I don't know how to pray as I ought, but the Spirit himself interecedes for me with sighs too deep for words (Romans 8:26).

The Spirit prays through me to the Spirit. And if I pray the Lord's Prayer, it is as if the Lord prays through me to the Lord. It's mystical, nonsensical, but it's better than rambling on list-like about all my dirty laundry.

I don't pray to change God's mind; I pray that God might change mine.

Why repent if God has already decided who will go to hell and heaven?

"Every knee will bow, in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord--to the glory of God the Father," (Philippians 2:10-11).

In both heaven and in hell, God will be worshipped; this much, I'm sure. Repentance, then, seems to make the difference between floating phantasmically along through marshmallow clouds in worship, or sun-bathing (burning) in the Abyss. Either way, afterlife isn't all about us.

If you believe that God is not influenced by the choices of man, then you must be very calvinistic in theology.

Again, your logic inevitably pits God's choices against humanity's choices; freedom is not a zero-sum game. There is more than enough freedom to go around without having to bully God for our fair share. There are different freedoms for different B/beings who exist on radically different ontological planes.

He has already predestined some to salvation and others to damnation then.

Oh, nonsense. I'm going just as Arminian as you are, except I won't be so heterodox in the process.

He IS sovereign and HE is emotional. Emotions do not make God weak, it makes Him truly God. A Supreme Spirit capable of loving and hating rather than a hard and fast system of laws.

No, emotions do not make God truly God; God makes God truly God, and that without any making. God does not need to be made God; God is God.

Psycho-affective self-awareness does not make God truly God--it just makes Him more relatable.

You aren't looking for a Supreme Spirit, you're looking for a Supreme Psyche.

And in the person of Jesus, did he have emotions? "Jesus wept" so did this make Him less God than before? Was He weak for showing His emotions? Or did He not really have emotions, was He just putting on a show for the humans?

Well, Jesus also urinated, but since we don't typically infer much of God's mood from this excretion, why should tears be any different? Emotions are just as much part and parcel of being truly human as is pee, but his true humanness does not necessarily correlate in a one-to-one sense with his true divinity.

[Anthony Livolsi]

An unemotional God is not capable of relationship and is therefore distant.

Hurry--get out of relationship with God!

We are inherently, inescapably in relationship with God by virtue of that whole Creator-created "thing." And neither our, nor Gods, emotional involvement changes this.

I keep hearing about people who have relationships with God, and well, duh.

[Dale Cozby]

Anthony, You seem to be hung up on the term anthropomorphisms.

So we are on the same page:
anthropomorphism:
Attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena.;the representation of objects (especially a god) as having human form or traits

Let me ask you this:
What do you think the image of God is?
Can man have traits like God? Can we love(agape type)? Can we have any of the traits of God that form us in His image?

If it is not freewill, or the traits of the Spirit of God(agape for instance) then what is it?

Help me understand this passage:

1 Cor 2:10 The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.14The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment: 16"For who has known the mind of the Lord
that he may instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.

freedom is not a zero-sum game Another of your catchy phrases, please elaborate on it for us and how it applies to what I have said. Please quote me as it applies so I can understand where we are miscommunicating.

Oh, nonsense. I'm going just as Arminian as you are, except I won't be so heterodox in the process. Ooh...nice college word insult.:p

You are planning to be a professor and not a pastor right?:rolleyes:

God makes God truly God, and that without any making. God does not need to be made God; God is God. Oh please, this is arguement for the sake of arguement.
Let's define terms AGAIN. sigh....
Make: to form in the mind/spirit; prove to be; to recognize or identify; to show oneself to be ;disposition; character; nature

NOT make as in: to produce; cause to exist or happen; bring about

God IS God because of His attributes. Justice, Mercy, Omnipotent, Omnipresent, etc...etc... You say God has no emotions. Most of us here believe the Bible is pretty clear that He does. You call them anthropomorphism. I call them part of God. You say church fathers say HE is above emotions, I will quote the prophets that say He has emotions. Not frail human emotional states, but Divine in nature and purpose. The very term emotion derives itself from the word for "to move".
It is the heart of motive and action.

You aren't looking for a Supreme Spirit, you're looking for a Supreme Psyche Hmm....I won't tell you what your looking for if you won't tell me what I am looking for.;)
Why do you think I am trying to make God into a supreme man-being? Have you dealt with alot of Mormons or something that got you edgy? Or is it that you have been studying greek philosophy?

Here are some quotes for thought:

from Justin Martyr, first Apology Chapter 28:
In the beginning He made the human
race with the power of thought and of choosing the truth and doing right,
so that all men are without excuse before God; for they have been born
rational and contemplative. And if any one disbelieves that God cares for
these things, he will thereby either insinuate that God does not exist, or he will assert that though He exists He delights in vice, or exists like a stone, and that neither virtue nor vice are anything, but only in the opinion of men these things are reckoned good or evil. And this is the greatest profanity and wickedness.

from Christianity Today
If love implies vulnerability, the traditional understanding of God as impassible makes it impossible to say that "God is love." An almighty God who cannot suffer is poverty stricken because he cannot love or be involved. If God remains unmoved by whatever we do, there is really very little point in doing one thing rather than the other. If friendship means allowing oneself to be affected by another, then this unmoved, unfeeling deity can have no friends or be our friend

from Richard Rice; open-theist making fun of impassibility: God dwells in perfect bliss outside the sphere of time and space . . .. He remains essentially unaffected by creaturely events and experiences. He is untouched by the disappointment, sorrow or suffering of his creatures. Just as his sovereign will brooks no opposition, his serene tranquility knows no interruption.

J.I. Packer wrote:
In so far as God enters into suffering and grief (which Scripture's many anthropopathisms, plus the fact of the cross, show that he does), it is by his own deliberate decision; he is never his creatures' hapless victim. God suffers along with His creation willingly. HE is "moved to action"(e-motion) by His creation by His own choice. Aftrerall, HE is the ultimate freewill agent is He not? He chooses to be grieved or sorrowed or angered.

You seem to think that He cannot feel these things. I say He does, of His own choice.

Boy....I hate having to get this long winded.

P.S. Sorry Hans if your thread has gotten off track.

[Dale Cozby]

Oh one more term to define:

1. Emotion: The part of the consciousness that involves feeling

2. Emotion: A mental state that arises spontaneously rather than through conscious effort and is often accompanied by physiological changes.

I am speaking in terms of definition number 1

and I think you only are using definition number 2.

[Kevin Rector]

I think that there must be a via media between Dale and Anthony.

One the one hand Anthony is absolutely right in that God is God and God is transcendent. In God's transcendence there is truly nothing that we can say about God rightly, nor is there anything that we can conceive about God rightly. This leads to a via negativa or apophatic theology. This sort of thing has had some popularity throughout history with the mystics.

However, the vast majority of people do not pursue a via negativa. Rather, they prefer a cataphatic theology that attempt to speak about what God is like. So we look to what we believe God has revealed. We see this in scripture, we see it in the incarnation of Christ (the immanence of God), we even see it in ourselves in that we reflect (at least to some measure) the nature of God.

So, Dale is also right in that God is God and God is immanent in Christ. For us to speak coherently about God (coherently for our sakes not God's sake) we must assign to him attributes that give us understanding about God. God is not man but we call God "he". God doesn't have emotions exactly like we have emotions, but it's fair to say that God has emotions. God does not have justice, mercy, grace, love or anything else exactly like we do. So yes, we assign characteristics to God of ourselves so that we can have meaningful dialog about God.

To speak with absolute precision about God is to be silent. So Anthony perhaps it's best to understand where Dale is coming from (and what he is actually saying) rather than demanding more theological precision which might lead to nothing.

[Dale Cozby]

Kevin, apophatic theology and catophatic theology! Ouch such big words for a simple minded man as me.:fav03 But I agree with you.

We can debate what God is and is not until we are blue in the face.
It is impossible to descibe the infinite with the finite. And yet Jesus did just that with the parables. The Kingdom of God is like.....

We can discuss the word LOVE and all it's many aspects and not even scratch the surface, because the Bible says: God is LOVE.
So how can we adequately describe God?

[Anthony Livolsi]

Well, I'll say amen and call it a day. Thanks, Kevin. (And also Dale for putting up with my idiocy!)

[Hans Deventer]

I think that there must be a via media between Dale and Anthony.

I'm not sure there is. All we can say with any seriousness about God is what we know from Him through His self revelation. Even the big words, the omni's, are merely philosophical and not based on revelation. They say more about what WE think a god is like than that they describe YHWH. We simply know NOTHING about Him that has not been revealed.

One the one hand Anthony is absolutely right in that God is God and God is transcendent. In God's transcendence there is truly nothing that we can say about God rightly, nor is there anything that we can conceive about God rightly. This leads to a via negativa or apophatic theology. This sort of thing has had some popularity throughout history with the mystics.

I think it is a dead end street.

However, the vast majority of people do not pursue a via negativa. Rather, they prefer a cataphatic theology that attempt to speak about what God is like. So we look to what we believe God has revealed. We see this in scripture, we see it in the incarnation of Christ (the immanence of God), we even see it in ourselves in that we reflect (at least to some measure) the nature of God.

And we really have nothing else to go by.

So, Dale is also right in that God is God and God is immanent in Christ. For us to speak coherently about God (coherently for our sakes not God's sake) we must assign to him attributes that give us understanding about God. God is not man but we call God "he". God doesn't have emotions exactly like we have emotions, but it's fair to say that God has emotions. God does not have justice, mercy, grace, love or anything else exactly like we do. So yes, we assign characteristics to God of ourselves so that we can have meaningful dialog about God.

I would rather say, God has revealed Himself to us in order for us to be able to have a relationship with Him, which is the eternal life (John 17:3).

To speak with absolute precision about God is to be silent.

Why would we want to speak with absolute precision? In order to "control" Him? It seems from His revelation that this is hardly the kind of information He's keen on to give us. He seems quite reluctant (to say the least) to be put in our interrogation chairs, with the spotlights on His face.

[Kevin Rector]

All we can say with any seriousness about God is what we know from Him through His self revelation. Even the big words, the omni's, are merely philosophical and not based on revelation. They say more about what WE think a god is like than that they describe YHWH. We simply know NOTHING about Him that has not been revealed.

Right, and I think I said something to that effect.

I think it is a dead end street.

Well for most people it probably is, however there is a mystical tradition that finds great comfort in it, to seek God in the silence.

And we really have nothing else to go by.

Very true.

I would rather say, God has revealed Himself to us in order for us to be able to have a relationship with Him, which is the eternal life (John 17:3).

But even in that revelation we have to process it to some degree for our minds to understand the revelation. We can not have relationships with something that we can not fathom (well we can, but this is the root of the negation theology mentioned prior).

The root of positive theology is when we take the revelation given and we put it into categories that we can grasp. So we say things like love, or mercy are in God's nature. But God's nature is so far beyond our nature that our understanding of love or mercy are but hints if you will of what God is truly like (which is where Anthony was going). But we CAN speak of things like love and mercy because of revelation and our understanding of it (which is where Dale was going).

Why would we want to speak with absolute precision?

I don't, and that was the point of my post. Anthony was wanting a theological precision that was counterproductive to discourse. So he said things such as:

Hurry--get out of relationship with God!

We are inherently, inescapably in relationship with God by virtue of that whole Creator-created "thing." And neither our, nor Gods, emotional involvement changes this.

I keep hearing about people who have relationships with God, and well, duh.

What he said is accurate and true. But he was missing the fundamental point that when people talk about being in relationship they are talking about substantive personal relationship through the Holy Spirit. The kind of relationship that he was talking about was no different than my relationship to the solar system.

However, there is value in attempting to speak with theological precision (which is what I think Anthony was going for) precisely because it is very possible to speak wrongly about God.

[Hans Deventer]

Well for most people it probably is, however there is a mystical tradition that finds great comfort in it, to seek God in the silence.

Just a short note, I see much value in seeking God in silence, but I don't think that needs to be linked to apophatic theology. I believe there can be a meeting with God that goes beyond words (I actually presume that will be much what meeting God in heaven will be like), but I would say that would be rather beyond words, surpassing them, than it would be "to speak of God only in terms of what may not be said about God" (as Wikipedia defines apophatic theology).

[Hans Deventer]

But even in that revelation we have to process it to some degree for our minds to understand the revelation. We can not have relationships with something that we can not fathom (well we can, but this is the root of the negation theology mentioned prior).

The root of positive theology is when we take the revelation given and we put it into categories that we can grasp. So we say things like love, or mercy are in God's nature. But God's nature is so far beyond our nature that our understanding of love or mercy are but hints if you will of what God is truly like (which is where Anthony was going).

I wonder what purpose this line of thinking has. It is like saying to God, "You have revealed yourself to us but we understand that these are but hints of what you are truly like". I think this again borders on my objection that we have some way of knowing about God that enables us to put His revelation in perspective and considers it to be merely "hints".

I think that is pretty speculative and scary theology. If God is revealed as love, would that be merely a hint of who He is? I can easily accept that His love goes far beyond our own natural love, in fact, that is the point Isaiah makes about His ways being higher than our ways. But I have to believe that his revelations are true to who He is, especially in our Lord Jesus. Otherwise, we would not be able to know God at all!

All this discussion of who God is beyond what He revealed about Himself, is to me like the old scholastic arguments about how many angels could dance on a needle's point. I am in no position to say anything about Him that has not been revealed. Period. Neither positive nor negative. And attempting to do so nevertheless merely shows my apparent unquenchable thirst for knowledge, which He apparently did not think necessary to satisfy. Perhaps I should rather learn to live with that.

[Dale Cozby]

We believe in the plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, by which we understand the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments, given by divine inspiration, inerrantly revealing the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation, so that whatever is not contained therein is not to be enjoined as an article of faith.

OK, so everything we need "revealed" about God to be saved is already done in the Bible. God has made Himself known to us so we might be saved by Him.
He isn't so high and mighty that we cannot know Him.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Triune Godhead, that He is ever present and efficiently active in and with the Church of Christ, convincing the world of sin, regenerating those who repent and believe, sanctifying believers, and guiding into all truth as it is in Jesus

I wonder if some would like to see the words "all truth" removed from the articles and replaced with "revealed truth"? sigh.....

We believe that the human race’s creation in Godlikeness included ability to choose between right and wrong, and that thus human beings were made morally responsible;
(image of God then included freewill, at least according to the Church of the Nazarene)

we also believe that the grace of God through Jesus Christ is freely bestowed upon all people, enabling all who will to turn from sin to righteousness, believe on Jesus Christ for pardon and cleansing from sin, and follow good works pleasing and acceptable in His sight.
(so...God enables man to use His freewill after the fall, even though he is depraved)

[Hans Deventer]

I wonder if some would like to see the words "all truth" removed from the articles and replaced with "revealed truth"? sigh.....

Not me. All truth about God is revealed truth anyway, culminating in Jesus who is the truth Himself, so the Scritures are "guiding into all truth as it is in Jesus" as the Manual says.

[Kevin Rector]

...but I would say that would be rather beyond words, surpassing them, than it would be "to speak of God only in terms of what may not be said about God" (as Wikipedia defines apophatic theology).

Yes exactly, but when you've said all there is to say that God is not you are ultimately left in silence. The heart of apophatic spirituality is trying to get past our need to speak of God at all. Those mystics who've taught such things understood that our faith goes beyond words... it is in lived silence before the living God.

I'm not disagreeing with you, I just think apophatic theology does culminate ultimately in silence.

[Dale Cozby]

Yes exactly, but when you've said all there is to say that God is not you are ultimately left in silence.

At a remote monastery deep in the woods, the monks followed a rigid vow of silence. This vow could only be broken once a year on Christmas, by one monk, and the monk could speak only one sentence.

One Christmas, Brother Thomas had his turn to speak and said, "I love the delightful potatoes we grow and eat here everyday along with the stone ground fresh bread" Then he sat down. Silence ensued for 365 days.

The next Christmas, Brother Michael got his turn, and said, "I'm sick of eating potatoes and the bread stops me up I truly despise them!" Once again, silence ensued for 365 days.

The following Christmas, Brother Paul rose and said, "Well, I am fed up with all this constant bickering!"


Sorry, I just couldn't resist.:p

[Scott Hilton]

O.K., my head hurts, I have read this entire thread :eek: . I was feeling like I was back in a conversation with a calvinist who seem to have a theological name for everything they are talking about :basic05 .

So back on the thoughts of He gives and He takes away. I, at least at the moment, do not really have much of a problem with the take away part. Am I asking for it, no. However, I am having a hard time telling myself that the God who created all and who I must trust that He knows all and that all He does is GOOD, if He decides something needs taken away, it isn't due to His will being done. That if I don't like it or if it is a hard "take away" that it must mean it is not for His Good.

To parrallel what I am getting at a little. I am a parent, I do believe that He models parenthood or at least gives us glimpses of what He envisions parenthood to be. I as a parent have made adjustments in my daughters life over the years to fit what I saw as good for her and/or the family. I have cut back on computer time. I have taken away time that my daughter had had to spend on the computer doing things she found enjoyable, because I saw a greater good in spending her time as family or doing something I deemed as more worthy of time. She didn't do anything wrong, it wasn't a punishment, however she did not like it at first. She viewed it as a punishment because I did literally take something away. However I had my eyes on the bigger picture of her life than she did.

Now, as difficult as some of things are that can be taken away, what is wrong with trusting that the God who is good has His eyes on the bigger picture as well? One that we may be to finite to possibly understand?

I also acknowledge the fact that, without sin, none of this would be. That all of these things entered into the world right along with sin. However, we can not change that historical act. Nor can I lay claim that I would have done any better.

Not sure if I added anything to the conversation, but at least I did it without using any big words :)

Blessings