Confessing Divine Impassibility

[JAL]

First, nothing in the quotes you've stated is objectionable. Second, where it becomes objectionable is in your tortured understanding of those quotes. Divine simplicity doesn't turn God into a Platonic universal, and I'd bet if that question was put to the author of that article he would deny any such claim. The article isn't saying God is the "concept" of being, but being as you quoted "God is what He has." And this isn't something philosopher's have come up with, it comes from God's own mouth "ehyah esher ehyah," "I am am."

I'd also like to point out that the Bible(and theologians) do not claim God is loving, but that He is love.

Here's another example:

"He is not unique as one of a kind, but unique in transcending the distinction between kind and member of a kind."

He is not a MEMBER of a kind, not an EXAMPLE of a kind. He IS the kind itself. That's Platonic realism. And yes, it still runs into the issue of multiplicity, which the article tries to address.

 

[Fervent]

Here's another example:

"He is not unique as one of a kind, but unique in transcending the distinction between kind and member of a kind."

He is not a MEMBER of a kind, not an EXAMPLE of a kind. He IS the kind itself. That's Platonic realism. And yes, it still runs into the issue of multiplicity, which the article tries to address.

No matter how much you insist it's platonic realism, it will never be Platonic realism. All this post demonstrates is your misunderstanding of both Platonic realism and divine simplicity;

 

[JAL]

No matter how much you insist it's platonic realism, it will never be Platonic realism. All this post demonstrates is your misunderstanding of both Platonic realism and divine simplicity;

If that language doesn't describe some kind of realism, then it describes a distinction without a difference - it represents the futility of theologians vainly struggling so hard to dichotomize/polarize man and God that the end result is completely unintelligible. Nobody can be sure what's being said. Either God HAS knowledge (like man does), or He IS that concept/property. At least the former we can comprehend.

Anyway you look at it, Simplicity makes bogus assumptions and draws bizarre conclusions. It's all based on the ASSUMPTION that God MUST be a philosophically ideal being - according to weird human ideals such as a lack of multiplicity (how nice for a Trinity) - instead of a regular person like us (i.e. my Father). The truth is that God doesn't take pride in what He IS (only a jerk would do that) but in what He DOES.

I'll take the God of the Bible - the Father who play-wrestles with his kids, comes over to Abraham's house for supper, and chows down on a beef sandwich. You can enjoy your nebulous, depersonalized Simplicity, and you can keep telling yourself it came from the Bible.

 

[Fervent]

If that language doesn't describe some kind of realism, then it describes a distinction without a difference - it represents the futility of theologians vainly struggling so hard to dichotomize/polarize man and God that the end result is completely unintelligible. Nobody can be sure what's being said. Either God HAS knowledge (like man does), or He IS that concept/property. At least the former we can comprehend.

Anyway you look at it, Simplicity makes bogus assumptions and draws bizarre conclusions. It's all based on the ASSUMPTION that God MUST be a philosophically ideal being - according to weird human ideals such as a lack of multiplicity (how nice for a Trinity) - instead of a regular person like us (i.e. my Father). The truth is that God doesn't take pride in what He IS (only a jerk would do that) but in what He DOES.

I'll take the God of the Bible - the Father who play-wrestles with his kids, comes over to Abraham's house for supper, and chows down on a beef sandwich. You can enjoy your nebulous, depersonalized Simplicity, and you can keep telling yourself it came from the Bible.

Jibberish, the only bizarre conclusions are your own.

 

[JAL]

Jibberish, the only bizarre conclusions are your own.

Nope. I only believe in finite material objects. Anything else is a fairytale of a kind that we have no verifiable knowledge of and cannot understand.

"Use the immaterial Force, Luke!"

Is matter a bizarre concept? Is it bogus?

Whatever.

 

[Fervent]

Nope. I only believe in finite material objects. Anything else is a fairytale of a kind that we have no verifiable knowledge of and cannot understand.

"Use the immaterial Force, Luke!"

Is matter a bizarre concept? Is it bogus?

Whatever.

Ah, so you'll only have a god you create in your own image rather than the one that Scripture reveals.

 

[JAL]

Ah, so you'll only have a god you create in your own image rather than the one that Scripture reveals.

Nope. All the biblical evidence supports my view. Anything else has its seeds in the pagan philosophy of Plato.

 

[Fervent]

Nope. All the biblical evidence supports my view. Anything else has its seeds in the pagan philosophy of Plato.

If that were true, you wouldn't basically stand alone in your belief in a puny, finite, material god.

 

[JAL]

If that were true, you wouldn't basically stand alone in your belief in a puny, finite, material god.

A God who holds 100 billion galaxies in the palm of His hand is puny?

If this is what you would say to His face, you're foolishly placing yourself in grave danger.

Can you think of anyone who would likely overthrow this "puny" God? I sure can't think of anyone, offhand.

 

[JAL]

If that were true, you wouldn't basically stand alone....

Well, emphasis on basically. Tertullian stood on my side. It's not his fault that the other theologians of his day fell for Platonic philosophy.

 

[Fervent]

A God who holds 100 billion galaxies in the palm of His hand is puny?

If this is what you would say to His face, you're foolishly placing yourself in grave danger.

Can you think of anyone who would likely overthrow this "puny" God? I sure can't think of anyone, offhand.

Any god that is little more than a more powerful version of created things is a puny god, especially in comparison to the Holy.

Well, emphasis on basically. Tertullian stood on my side. It's not his fault that the other theologians of his day fell for Platonic philosophy.

Given your penchant for not understanding things, I'm guessing wherever you think Tertullian supports your view of a finite, material god is a product of your imagination rather than an accurate assessment of his words.

 

[JAL]

Any god that is little more than a more powerful version of created things is a puny god, especially in comparison to the Holy.

Ok, should be easy for anyone to overthrow Him, then. All they have to do is move 100 billion galaxies out of the way.

Given your penchant for not understanding things, I'm guessing wherever you think Tertullian supports your view of a finite, material god is a product of your imagination rather than an accurate assessment of his words.

Tertullian was a monistic materialist. You weren't aware of that?

 

[JAL]

@Fervent,

It is irrational/bogus/bizarre to accept the term infinite as a legitimate description of an existing reality - because it's not a specific/discrete number. It only leads to confusion and contradictions. Historically, this notion should have been dismissed out of hand.

 

[peaceful-forest]

Do you believe that God is impassable? Feel free to vote and/or explain.

No. The Bible has numerous examples of God experiencing emotions because of what humans have done.

 

[Fervent]

Ok, should be easy for anyone to overthrow Him, then. All they have to do is move 100 billion galaxies out of the way.

Tertullian was a monistic materialist. You weren't aware of that?

While I'm not terribly familiar with Tertullian's writings, your track record so far has given me cause to question your reading comprehension. On top of that, applying modern categories to ancient writers is more likely to cause confusion than clarity. What, specifically, has Tertullian written that you find compelling?

@Fervent,

It is irrational/bogus/bizarre to accept the term infinite as a legitimate description of an existing reality - because it's not a specific/discrete number. It only leads to confusion and contradictions. Historically, this notion should have been dismissed out of hand.

Simply because it is beyond human conception does not make it illegitimate. As I said before, you're simply building a god in your image(so you can comprehend him) rather than taking the God of Scripture who is beyond human comprehension.

 

[JAL]

While I'm not terribly familiar with Tertullian's writings, your track record so far has given me cause to question your reading comprehension.

That's a laugh. Let's get something straight: NO ONE - not in any real depth - comprehends the traditional Christology and Doctrine of God. It is a bunch o unintelligible rambling such as atemporality, infinitude, impassibility and, as if that weren't enough, it is exacerbated by an immutable God becoming man. Millard J. Erickson admitted, for example, that the orthodox Trinity is logically "absurd from the human standpoint" (Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2001, reprint), p. 367). The theory of the Hypostatic Union is by all accounts humanly incoherent.

So don't try to tell me that you "understand" Simplicity. Stop kidding yourself. Several theologians will outright admit that the orthodox God is humanly incomprehensible.

I prefer coherent theories.

On top of that, applying modern categories to ancient writers is more likely to cause confusion than clarity. What, specifically, has Tertullian written that you find compelling?

His materialism - not because he wrote it but because it's a logically and biblically stronger position.

Simply because it is beyond human conception does not make it illegitimate.

Yes it does. It is irrational/bogus/bizarre to regard a humanly unintelligible/incoherent theory as a "doctrine". Such is neither a true doctrine nor a false doctrine - it's just not even a doctrine at all.

What theologians ought to have done is put all the coherent theories on the table and debated them.

If we're not willing to do that, how are we better than cults? "Use the immaterial Force, Luke!"

As I said before, you're simply building a god in your image(so you can comprehend him) rather than taking the God of Scripture who is beyond human comprehension.

See above. If we can't comprehend Him, the Bible affords no hope. For example if "love" means something different for Him than for me (kindness), we're in real trouble.

 

[JAL]

Simply because it is beyond human conception does not make it illegitimate. As I said before, you're simply building a god in your image(so you can comprehend him) rather than taking the God of Scripture who is beyond human comprehension.

If it is a man's belief that God is beyond human comprehension, he should shut his mouth about God! He really has nothing more to say - he shouldn't become a theologian. How can he properly make reliable positive or negative assertions about a reality not comprehended?

 

[Fervent]

That's a laugh. Let's get something straight: NO ONE - not in any real depth - comprehends the traditional Christology and Doctrine of God. It is a bunch o unintelligible rambling such as atemporality, infinitude, impassibility and, as if that weren't enough, it is exacerbated by an immutable God becoming man. Millard J. Erickson admitted, for example, that the orthodox Trinity is logically "absurd from the human standpoint" (Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2001, reprint), p. 367). The theory of the Hypostatic Union is by all accounts humanly incoherent.

So don't try to tell me that you "understand" Simplicity. Stop kidding yourself. Several theologians will outright admit that the orthodox God is humanly incomprehensible.

I prefer coherent theories.


His materialism - not because he wrote it but because it's a logically and biblically stronger position.


Yes it does. It is irrational/bogus/bizarre to regard a humanly unintelligible/incoherent theory as a "doctrine". Such is neither a true doctrine nor a false doctrine - it's just not even a doctrine at all.

What theologians ought to have done is put all the coherent theories on the table and debated them.

If we're not willing to do that, how are we better than cults? "Use the immaterial Force, Luke!"


See above. If we can't comprehend Him, the Bible affords no hope. For example if "love" means something different for Him than for me (kindness), we're in real trouble.

Your rants are quite funny, you clearly think highly of yourself if you think you can understand the God whose greatness is unsearchable. You're almost right about one thing, though, and that's the futility of a speculative "natural" theology. The only thing the Christian theologian needs to concern himself with is what has been revealed in Scripture, the incomprehensible, secret things belong to God alone. Also kind of odd you think God is a human theory or "doctrine," who is it you were saying is making God a living concept?

 

[JAL]

Your rants are quite funny, you clearly think highly of yourself if you think you can understand the God whose greatness is unsearchable.

Do you know what matter is? Apparently you don't fathom the difference between quantitative comprehension versus qualitative comprehension. What was that you said about people with a poor track record of understanding things?

I'll explain with an example. I understand a computer just fine, in a qualitative sense. It's just a piece of matter! But I haven't memorized every circuit on the motherboard. In the same way I fully understand God. For example divine healing is just His physical hands performing surgery. Nothing "mysterious" (supernatural) about it. There is nothing supernatural in the Bible. Clear?

Occam's Razor.

The only thing the Christian theologian needs to concern himself with is what has been revealed in Scripture, the incomprehensible, secret things belong to God alone.

First of all, how is that a valid excuse for a theologian proposing incoherent theories? Why cannot he say, "I'll remain silent on this particular doctrine. There's plenty of other doctrines I can research. Let someone who has a COHERENT theory cast his vote here." If we tolerate incoherent theories, how are we better than a cult?

Secondly, these incoherent theories seem to contradict Scripture at every turn. It's hard to be sure, though, right? I mean, it's sort of hard to charge someone with contradiction if no one can understand what's being said! Maybe an example will help you see where I'm coming from? Suppose Christ's soul were immaterial. That means no atonement, right? After all, no mater how much damage that one does to His human body, it could have NO IMPACT on the sensible soul, and thus no suffering.

The only thing the Christian theologian needs to concern himself with is what has been revealed in Scripture, the incomprehensible, secret things belong to God alone.

Exactly. Why not have a theology that lines up with Scripture, rather than one that contradicts it at every turn.

 

[Fervent]

Do you know what matter is? Apparently you don't fathom the difference between quantitative comprehension versus qualitative comprehension. What was that you said about people with a poor track record of understanding things?

I'll explain with an example. I understand a computer just fine, in a qualitative sense. It's just a piece of matter! But I haven't memorized every circuit on the motherboard. In the same way I fully understand God. For example divine healing is just His physical hands performing surgery. Nothing "mysterious" (supernatural) about it. There is nothing supernatural in the Bible. Clear?

Occam's Razor.



First of all, how is that a valid excuse for a theologian proposing incoherent theories? Why cannot he say, "I'll remain silent on this particular doctrine. There's plenty of other doctrines I can research. Let someone who has a COHERENT theory cast his vote here." If we tolerate incoherent theories, how are we better than a cult?

Secondly, these incoherent theories seem to contradict Scripture at every turn. It's hard to be sure, though, right? I mean, it's sort of hard to charge someone with contradiction if no one can understand what's being said! Maybe an example will help you see where I'm coming from? Suppose Christ's soul were immaterial. That means no atonement, right? After all, no mater how much damage that one does to His human body, it could have NO IMPACT on the sensible soul, and thus no suffering.



Exactly. Why not have a theology that lines up with Scripture, rather than one that contradicts it at every turn.

Are you satire? Last time I checked, a personal God is by definition supernatural.