# Putting God "in a box"?



## Davidius (Apr 6, 2009)

Does this phrase mean anything more than "you believe something about God that I don't"? How can we even speak of God without putting some kind of "limitation" on Him?


----------



## toddpedlar (Apr 6, 2009)

That's precisely what that phrase means to me, whenever I'm told it. Usually it's in the context of a discussion in which I've explained what God says about Himself in Scripture - I'm elucidating Scriptural teaching about God - and the person who says the above phrase basically disagrees with it and wants to argue that any way of describing God in specific terms is clearly a human construct. (despite the fact that what I've said to them about God is merely what God has revealed to us in His word) 

It's worth taking the caution, though, not to say MORE than can be explicitly found in Scripture or derived from good and necessary consequence - i.e. to follow the Confessional approach to the Word.


----------



## PresbyDane (Apr 6, 2009)

No, when the finite has to describe the infinite there will be limitations so I guess in some sense we do limitet God but God did that himself when he described himself to us.
I think it is when we limit him more then he did himself, that we make ourselves guilty of putting him in a box. 
One made by us.


----------



## Zenas (Apr 6, 2009)

Pretty much. 

Frequently employed by pomo's in a vain attempt to refute orthodox notions of God. It's an equivocation used to emphatically deny that God has revealed Himself in any substantive manner, steeped in a misunderstanding of God's infinite nature. 

They completely miss the point that it's not we that are putting God in a "box", but that God has revealed Himself in a limited manner and we are to understanding of Him what He has told us. This does not, in any way, detract from His infinite nature. 

In short, it's a complete misunderstanding of God's transcendent nature used to refute _any_ offer that God is somehow immanent.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Apr 6, 2009)

When I am in conversation with someone (99.9% here at PTS) and they bring out this canard my blood-pressure usually jumps about 30 points. It is used, as noted above, as an argumentative "get out of jail free card" for people to pretty much believe what they want without foundation.


----------



## Kim G (Apr 6, 2009)

Wow, I guess I don't get out much. I've never heard it used in any of these negative contexts. When I've heard it used, it was always to those whose perspective of God was narrowed more than Scripture is. "Don't put God in a box" was an encouragement to search out ALL of what is revealed about God in scripture. It was also a reminder of the Lord's sovereignty in all things (so that we needn't fear calamity or poverty or enemies)--God is bigger than all those things. "Ask great things of a great God."

I can see how the phrase could be misused, but I don't think it has to be.


----------



## Zenas (Apr 6, 2009)

The phrase itself is a general appeal to God's transcendence in response to what the speaker views as an over-emphasis on His immanence. You're right, the context of the discussion determines whether it's being "rightly" used or not.

However, I think that the response is, in all instances, a cop out because it's just a general reply. It skirts around the real issue and provides no direction or specification regarding the problem with perceived over-emphasis on immanence. Every time I've heard it used, it's by a person who knows zero (0) Scripture, and only have vague notions of who God is because they went to their local Methodist church for VBS one summer. That or it's your standard, run of the mill Open Theist or Emergent.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Apr 6, 2009)

Though it can have positive connotations, as Kim pointed out, I've always thought of it as a neoevangelical (or in today's context, an emergent church) "hammer phrase" they pull out to whack you with when you refuse to yield the teachings of Scripture to the "wisdom" of man.


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Apr 6, 2009)

Zenas said:


> However, I think that the response is, in all instances, a cop out because it's just a general reply. It skirts around the real issue and provides no direction or specification regarding the problem with perceived over-emphasis on immanence.



This is a good point. If someone means to say, "Your view of God's sovereignty is too limited," or whatever else you mean, then they should just say it. The "God in a box" expression is not always theologically _wrong_, but it is almost always intellectually lazy.


----------



## Christoffer (Apr 7, 2009)

*Response?*

So what is the quick and dirty response to the phrase "You cannot put God in a box"?

Suggestion: ask why not? Then they will have to reveal their presupposition.

As a side note, there is a variation of the phrase. Whenever you try to derive, for example, limited atonement from the Bible the response might be "well, God is greater than our finite understandings"

I find that during conversations like these it is best to ask questions in return in order to make the other party reveal their presupposition.

The presupposition is always that God has not revealed definite things about himself in language that humans can comprehend. But once you believe that then all theology is out the window.

So it is a positions that cannot be held consistently.


----------



## OPC'n (Apr 7, 2009)

God in a box?  I can buy that. Our knowledge is the box and is expandable, moldable... and the more we learn the bigger our box gets. Hopefully, God will always be in our box pushing its size to greater depths and heights. Putting God into a box is the safest thing to put in a box for He will explode it. Whereas, if I put you into a box, I could conceivably keep you there. I don't fear having God in my box....He made the box and He will do with it as He pleases.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Apr 8, 2009)

Zenas said:


> Pretty much.
> 
> Frequently employed by pomo's in a vain attempt to refute orthodox notions of God. It's an equivocation used to emphatically deny that God has revealed Himself in any substantive manner, steeped in a misunderstanding of God's infinite nature.
> 
> ...


Amen, brother! This is the favorite tactic of the open theists.


----------

