# Neo-Orthodoxy Pt1 R.C. Sproul



## OPC'n

Here is a great sermon/teaching by Sproul on why God isn't wholly other. Enjoy!


----------



## Grymir

Way Cool!!! Sproul smash's Barth. In WWF style even!


----------



## OPC'n

Yep, he's da man!!!!


----------



## Houchens

Thanks Sarah! Pt 2 is up now as well.


----------



## DMcFadden

OPC'n said:


> Yep, he's da man!!!!



AMEN!

Spoul helped me to leave broad evangelicalism for a more consistent 5pt Calvinism, he helped me (Providence of God MP3) deal with one of my sons who was a prodigal, and he re-energized my passion for theology.

I'm traveling between Fayetteville (2nd son's house) and Joplin to visit my son in the hospital today. Jeanette and I will listen to both parts of his lecture.


----------



## OPC'n

DMcFadden said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, he's da man!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMEN!
> 
> Spoul helped me to leave broad evangelicalism for a more consistent 5pt Calvinism, he helped me (Providence of God MP3) deal with one of my sons who was a prodigal, and he re-energized my passion for theology.
> 
> I'm traveling between Fayetteville (2nd son's house) and Joplin to visit my son in the hospital today. Jeanette and I will listen to both parts of his lecture.
Click to expand...


He was the one who who brought me into the reformed faith. This subject he has taught on before, and I remember when I first heard it I had to recognize that what Paul Washer had taught about God being wholly other was wrong. That's when I realized that emtionally charged sermons are not always correct just bc they make you cry. One must be a berean and make sure what is taught is correct. I really like Sproul bc he is passionate about the Word of God but calm and balanced much like my own pastor.


----------



## Andres

I am sorry for my ignorance here, but could someone please expand on what the phrase "wholly other" means, specifically in this context?


----------



## OPC'n

Andres said:


> I am sorry for my ignorance here, but could someone please expand on what the phrase "wholly other" means, specifically in this context?



Some preacher such as Paul Washer believe that God is so holy (which in the Hebrew language means to cut and separate) that He is NOTHING like us. While it is true that God is very holy and we could never measure up to Him, He indeed is something like us otherwise (as Sproul teaches) not only would we not know anything of Him we couldn't know anything of Him. He would speak in a language we could not understand for instance. We would be without love, peace, joy etc attributes that are who He is which are commutable attributes to us. If He were wholly other (remembering that holy means to cut and separate and that's why Paul thinks He is nothing like us), then we would not have any of the attributes that He is and we could never strive via the Holy Spirit to attain them through sanctification. Listen to his sermon he makes more sense than I do.


----------



## Andres

OPC'n said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am sorry for my ignorance here, but could someone please expand on what the phrase "wholly other" means, specifically in this context?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some preacher such as Paul Washer believe that God is so holy (which in the Hebrew language means to cut and separate) that He is NOTHING like us. While it is true that God is very holy and we could never measure up to Him, He indeed is something like us otherwise (as Sproul teaches) not only would we not know anything of Him we couldn't know anything of Him. He would speak in a language we could not understand for instance. We would be without love, peace, joy etc attributes that are who He is which are commutable attributes to us. If He were wholly other (remembering that holy means to cut and separate and that's why Paul thinks He is nothing like us), then we would not have any of the attributes that He is and we could never strive via the Holy Spirit to attain them through sanctification. Listen to his sermon he makes more sense than I do.
Click to expand...


Thank you Sarah for your brief explanation. I presume that Washer and Sproul are limiting the discussion to the attributes of God the Father only and therefore any thoughts on the duality of Christ are withheld? 
Finally, wouldn't the phrase be "holy other" or is it "wholly" as in complete. Sorry, but I guess I have not given this much thought before, but thank you as I now will and I am definitely interested in hearing the sermon.


----------



## OPC'n

It is wholly other and here's why: holy in the Hebrew language means "to cut and separate" because of this definition ppl like Paul Washer take that definition and come up with yet another definition and say that since God is holy (cut and separated from us) then that must mean that He is wholly (entirely) different or nothing like us. I believe that Paul Washer believes the wholly other of Christ would be His divine nature and wouldn't include His human nature. Which if he thought hard about that one wouldn't be able to come to his conclusion bc if God were wholly other than us He would have never been able to become man. God is other than us just not wholly other than us.


----------



## DMcFadden

19th Century Liberalism emphasized the immanence of God. The supernatural was neutered, denied, and re-explained. A typical lib explanation of the miracle of the loaves, for example, suggests that Jesus used moral susasion to get his listeners to share their lunches with their less well off neighbors on the hillside.

Neo-orthodoxy placed the stress upon the transcendence of God. He was not the Father of us all and our bud, he was "wholly other" ("totaliter aliter" - totally other). The emphasis was upon the "otherness" of God, the mysterium tremendum.

The problem with such a construction is that if God is truly wholly other, then there is no basis for communication between God and us. In place of orthodoxy and its emphasis upon an "analogy of being" (analogia entis), neo-orthodoxy posited an analogy of relationship.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Moved to Theological forum.

Great synopsis on Neo-Orthodoxy by Sproul if anyone hasn't listened to it. It's actually a good teaching series in general covering Contemporary Theological issues.


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace

OPC'n said:


> It is wholly other and here's why: holy in the Hebrew language means "to cut and separate" because of this definition ppl like Paul Washer take that definition and come up with yet another definition and say that since God is holy (cut and separated from us) then that must mean that He is wholly (entirely) different or nothing like us. I believe that Paul Washer believes the wholly other of Christ would be His divine nature and wouldn't include His human nature. Which if he thought hard about that one wouldn't be able to come to his conclusion bc if God were wholly other than us He would have never been able to become man. God is other than us just not wholly other than us.



Sarah, Just to be fair. I think you should find out what Paul Washer means when he says God is wholly other than our selves. If you 've heard his explanation and have a mp3 I would be happy to hear it...


----------



## OPC'n

XBlackWaterX said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is wholly other and here's why: holy in the Hebrew language means "to cut and separate" because of this definition ppl like Paul Washer take that definition and come up with yet another definition and say that since God is holy (cut and separated from us) then that must mean that He is wholly (entirely) different or nothing like us. I believe that Paul Washer believes the wholly other of Christ would be His divine nature and wouldn't include His human nature. Which if he thought hard about that one wouldn't be able to come to his conclusion bc if God were wholly other than us He would have never been able to become man. God is other than us just not wholly other than us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah, Just to be fair. I think you should find out what Paul Washer means when he says God is wholly other than our selves. If you 've heard his explanation and have a mp3 I would be happy to hear it...
Click to expand...


I have heard and I will try to find it for you.


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace

OPC'n said:


> XBlackWaterX said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is wholly other and here's why: holy in the Hebrew language means "to cut and separate" because of this definition ppl like Paul Washer take that definition and come up with yet another definition and say that since God is holy (cut and separated from us) then that must mean that He is wholly (entirely) different or nothing like us. I believe that Paul Washer believes the wholly other of Christ would be His divine nature and wouldn't include His human nature. Which if he thought hard about that one wouldn't be able to come to his conclusion bc if God were wholly other than us He would have never been able to become man. God is other than us just not wholly other than us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah, Just to be fair. I think you should find out what Paul Washer means when he says God is wholly other than our selves. If you 've heard his explanation and have a mp3 I would be happy to hear it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have heard and I will try to find it for you.
Click to expand...


Your the best.


----------



## Marrow Man

How much does neo-orthodoxy and the concept of God being "wholly other" factor into the van Tillian-Clark disputes?


----------



## OPC'n

XBlackWaterX said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XBlackWaterX said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah, Just to be fair. I think you should find out what Paul Washer means when he says God is wholly other than our selves. If you 've heard his explanation and have a mp3 I would be happy to hear it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have heard and I will try to find it for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your the best.
Click to expand...


Hey, thanks!  Here is the sermon of Paul about which I'm talking. In this sermon, he states that God is nothing like us and is completely different from us. I've heard the sermon before awhile ago so I didn't listen to the whole thing again. I only got to the part where he says this and where he starts talking about the "other" of God and meshed the two together....then I stopped listening since I don't agree with his belief system on this subject.


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace

OPC'n said:


> XBlackWaterX said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have heard and I will try to find it for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your the best.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, thanks!  Here is the sermon of Paul about which I'm talking. In this sermon, he states that God is nothing like us and is completely different from us. I've heard the sermon before awhile ago so I didn't listen to the whole thing again. I only got to the part where he says this and where he starts talking about the "other" of God and meshed the two together....then I stopped listening since I don't agree with his belief system on this subject.
Click to expand...


Check your inbox.


----------



## MW

Of course God is wholly other. Westminster Confession 7.1. Rejecting God's incomprehensibility is not a legitimate way to refute neo-orthodoxy's affirmation of it. It is rather in the area of God's knowability through condescending revelation that neo-orthodoxy must be challenged.


----------



## OPC'n

armourbearer said:


> Of course God is wholly other. Westminster Confession 7.1. Rejecting God's incomprehensibility is not a legitimate way to refute neo-orthodoxy's affirmation of it. It is rather in the area of God's knowability through condescending revelation that neo-orthodoxy must be challenged.



If God were wholly other, we couldn't know anything about Him. It would be impossible for us to understand anything He had to say. He isn't wholly other. Have you listened to Sproul's sermon? Stating that God is not wholly other isn't rejecting His incomprehensibility. Although we don't comprehend Him completely, we do know something of Him. If He were wholly other then He would be completely and utterly incomprehensible and we would know nothing of Him


----------



## MW

OPC'n said:


> If God were wholly other, we couldn't know anything about Him. It would be impossible for us to understand anything He had to say. He isn't wholly other. Have you listened to Sproul's sermon?



"Condescension" is the missing link here and provides a sound solution to your false dilemma. I don't have time to listen to this particular message by Sproul at the moment, but I am well acquainted with the Gerstner-Sproul-Ligonier evidential apologetic method.


----------



## OPC'n

armourbearer said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> If God were wholly other, we couldn't know anything about Him. It would be impossible for us to understand anything He had to say. He isn't wholly other. Have you listened to Sproul's sermon?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Condescension" is the missing link here and provides a sound solution to your false dilemma. I don't have time to listen to this particular message by Sproul at the moment, but I am well acquainted with the Gerstner-Sproul-Ligonier evidential apologetic method.
Click to expand...


I don't think it's a false dilemma....it's very logical. If God is *nothing* like us, then He would be completely incapable of communicating to us anything about who He is. We would be unable to receive His communicable attributes etc. I think you should take the time to listen to his sermon it's not that long. I think once you heard it you would agree.


----------



## MW

OPC'n said:


> I don't think it's a false dilemma....it's very logical. If God is *nothing* like us, then He would be completely incapable of communicating to us anything about who He is. We would be unable to receive His communicable attributes etc. I think you should take the time to listen to his sermon it's not that long. I think once you heard it you would agree.



I will have a listen on Monday morning but it would have to be a remarkable collection of arguments to overturn a fundamental metaphysic of the reformed tradition. As for communicable attributes, these are predicated of God in such a way as they belong properly and only to Him. "Thou only art holy;" "the only wise God."


----------



## OPC'n

armourbearer said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it's a false dilemma....it's very logical. If God is *nothing* like us, then He would be completely incapable of communicating to us anything about who He is. We would be unable to receive His communicable attributes etc. I think you should take the time to listen to his sermon it's not that long. I think once you heard it you would agree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will have a listen on Monday morning but it would have to be a remarkable collection of arguments to overturn a fundamental metaphysic of the reformed tradition. As for communicable attributes, these are predicated of God in such a way as they belong properly and only to Him. "Thou only art holy;" "the only wise God."
Click to expand...


God not being wholly other is of the reformed faith. A man named Barth was trying to fight the liberals of his time when they were trying to pull God down to an inappropriate level. He went overboard in his doctrine of wholly other. He basically was fighting both the liberals on their beliefs and the reformed on their beliefs. I might not be understanding what you are saying but are you saying that God doesn't have any attributes that are communicable to mankind? They of course belong to God since His attributes are who He is. But they don't belong only to Him only bc He decided to give us some of His attributes.....do we defile them?....yes, our love, peace etc are riddled with sin but they are indeed attributes given to us by God. When we are glorified we will exhibit these attributes perfectly. His non-communicable attributes are attributes we will never have. Perhaps you mean something different from what I got from your sentence though.


----------



## TeachingTulip

OPC'n said:


> They of course belong to God since His attributes are who He is. But they don't belong only to Him only bc He decided to give us some of His attributes.....



Uh?

Sorry, . . .but creatures . . .even redeemed creatures . . .can never possess the attributes of God. They can only reflect the Creator's attributes and benefit from them.





> do we defile them?



We SURE would, if they were ours to defile. But the creature cannot ever defile the attributes of their Maker. Not even the fall of mankind, affected the holiness, power, or excellency of God Almighty!



> ....yes, our love, peace etc are riddled with sin but they are indeed attributes given to us by God.




Grace is given to us by God, that gives us access to heaven and a sharing in the glory of God . . .but creatures remain creatures, even in glory. God does not ever transer divinity to the works of His hands, except through divine representation. 




> When we are glorified we will exhibit these attributes perfectly.



No. We will only benefit from and reflect God's glory. Divine attributes will never be inherent to those created by Him.





> His non-communicable attributes are attributes we will never have.



Right.


----------



## MW

OPC'n said:


> God not being wholly other is of the reformed faith.



No, it is not; please read WCF 7.1.



OPC'n said:


> I might not be understanding what you are saying but are you saying that God doesn't have any attributes that are communicable to mankind?



No; what I am saying is that they are "communicated;" the very fact that they are communicated means that the creature can never possess them essentially. If God only "possesses" them essentially then it is obvious that God is wholly other even in the "possession" of these communicable attributes. Which is why reformed divines prefer to say that He "is" them rather than "possesses" them.


----------



## OPC'n

TeachingTulip said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> They of course belong to God since His attributes are who He is. But they don't belong only to Him only bc He decided to give us some of His attributes.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh?
> 
> No, creatures . . .even redeemed creatures . . .can never possess the attributes of God. They can only reflect the Creator's attributes and benefit from them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do we defile them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We SURE would, if they were ours to defile. But the creature cannot ever defile the attributes of their Maker. Not even the fall of mankind, affected the holiness, power, or excellency of God Almighty!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grace is given to us by God, that gives us access to heaven and a sharing in the glory of God . . .but creatures remain creatures, even in glory. God does not share His divine attributes with the works of His hands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When we are glorified we will exhibit these attributes perfectly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. We will only benefit from and reflect God's glory. Divine attributes will never be inherent to those created by Him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His non-communicable attributes are attributes we will never have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right.
Click to expand...


I will point you to Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology (or any other reformer's work) where he talks about the communicable attributes of God. I do have one question for you, however. If we are being made into God's imagine and "we shall be like Him when He appears" which part of that is untrue? We will never have a divine nature....so we won't be like Him in that manner and we are not being made into His image of divineness. So how do you think we are being made into His image? Are we only going to be mirrors who reflect Who God is or are we going to actually be made into His image by being perfectly loving etc? To not have these attributes and to only mirror them, is to not be a new creation. When sin is finally defeated in you and me what will we be?....mirrors? The change that will come about us will be a sure change. I'm not sure where you get your theology....


----------



## TeachingTulip

OPC'n said:


> TeachingTulip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> They of course belong to God since His attributes are who He is. But they don't belong only to Him only bc He decided to give us some of His attributes.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh?
> 
> No, creatures . . .even redeemed creatures . . .can never possess the attributes of God. They can only reflect the Creator's attributes and benefit from them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We SURE would, if they were ours to defile. But the creature cannot ever defile the attributes of their Maker. Not even the fall of mankind, affected the holiness, power, or excellency of God Almighty!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grace is given to us by God, that gives us access to heaven and a sharing in the glory of God . . .but creatures remain creatures, even in glory. God does not share His divine attributes with the works of His hands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. We will only benefit from and reflect God's glory. Divine attributes will never be inherent to those created by Him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His non-communicable attributes are attributes we will never have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will point you to Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology (or any other reformer's work) where he talks about the communicable attributes of God. I do have one question for you, however. If we are being made into God's imagine and "we shall be like Him when He appears" which part of that is untrue? We will never have a divine nature....so we won't be like Him in that manner and we are not being made into His image of divineness. So how do you think we are being made into His image? Are we only going to be mirrors who reflect Who God is or are we going to actually be made into His image by being perfectly loving etc? To not have these attributes and to only mirror them, is to not be a new creation. When sin is finally defeated in you and me what will we be?....mirrors? The change that will come about us will be a sure change. I'm not sure where you get your theology....
Click to expand...


I hope my theology and beliefs are biblical and according to Holy Scripture!

If Christ was willing to humble Himself, to merely reflect the image of God, in order to identify with creatures . . .why would creatures redeemed by that act of humility, attempt to elevate themselves to divine status?

For myself, I hope, and am happy to anticipate living in the reflected glory of God forever. 

I do not desire to be like God.

I am satisfied that Holy God has condescended to be like me, in order to redeem my soul.


----------



## OPC'n

TeachingTulip said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TeachingTulip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh?
> 
> No, creatures . . .even redeemed creatures . . .can never possess the attributes of God. They can only reflect the Creator's attributes and benefit from them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We SURE would, if they were ours to defile. But the creature cannot ever defile the attributes of their Maker. Not even the fall of mankind, affected the holiness, power, or excellency of God Almighty!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grace is given to us by God, that gives us access to heaven and a sharing in the glory of God . . .but creatures remain creatures, even in glory. God does not share His divine attributes with the works of His hands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. We will only benefit from and reflect God's glory. Divine attributes will never be inherent to those created by Him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will point you to Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology (or any other reformer's work) where he talks about the communicable attributes of God. I do have one question for you, however. If we are being made into God's imagine and "we shall be like Him when He appears" which part of that is untrue? We will never have a divine nature....so we won't be like Him in that manner and we are not being made into His image of divineness. So how do you think we are being made into His image? Are we only going to be mirrors who reflect Who God is or are we going to actually be made into His image by being perfectly loving etc? To not have these attributes and to only mirror them, is to not be a new creation. When sin is finally defeated in you and me what will we be?....mirrors? The change that will come about us will be a sure change. I'm not sure where you get your theology....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hope my theology and beliefs are biblical and according to Holy Scripture!
> 
> If Christ was willing to humble Himself, to merely reflect the image of God, in order to identify with creatures . . .why would creatures redeemed by that act of humility, attempt to elevate themselves to divine status?
> 
> For myself, I hope, and am happy to anticipate living in the reflected glory of God forever.
> 
> I do not desire to be like God.
> 
> I am satisfied that Holy God has condescended to be like me, in order to redeem my soul.
Click to expand...


I just got through saying that we would never be divine...s*low down and read what I write*. Christ never just merely reflected the image of God....He was the image of God He never lost His divinity. Read Colossians 1:15 "He is the imagine of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation." He was always God Who became fully man. He didn't reflect God's imagine He was that image. And I'm not saying that we should desire to be like God in His divine nature but like it or not we shall be like Him. 1John 3:2 "Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is."

-----Added 9/11/2009 at 10:00:33 EST-----



armourbearer said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> God not being wholly other is of the reformed faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not; please read WCF 7.1.
> 
> 
> 
> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> I might not be understanding what you are saying but are you saying that God doesn't have any attributes that are communicable to mankind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No; what I am saying is that they are "communicated;" the very fact that they are communicated means that the creature can never possess them essentially. If God only "possesses" them essentially then it is obvious that God is wholly other even in the "possession" of these communicable attributes. Which is why reformed divines prefer to say that He "is" them rather than "possesses" them.
Click to expand...


Yes it is. And I agree that He *is* His attributes and there lies the difference between Him and His creation. We will never be the source of His attributes but we will certainly possess them. There is a difference between being an attribute and merely possessing an attribute. God has non-communicable attributes and communicable attributes. *All* of the reformed writers that I have read agrees with this.

-----Added 9/11/2009 at 10:08:10 EST-----

The WCF states:


> The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto Him as their Creator, yet *they could never have any fruition of Him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which He hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.*



God could have never voluntarily condescended if He were wholly other than us. The WCF doesn't support the doctrine of wholly other in its statement here.


----------



## MW

OPC'n said:


> And I'm not saying that we should desire to be like God in His divine nature but like it or not we shall be like Him. 1John 3:2 "Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is."



The text also says that He shall appear. Surely you do not think the divine nature shall appear. The referent must be to Christ. Therefore the conformity shall be to Christ's likeness.



OPC'n said:


> Yes it is. And I agree that He *is* His attributes and there lies the difference between Him and His creation.



How is it not wholly other "to be" rather than "to become?" I think you may be so determined to defend Sproul on this point that you are not taking time to think through the ramifications of what you are affirming.



OPC'n said:


> God could have never voluntarily condescended if He were wholly other than us. The WCF doesn't support the doctrine of wholly other in its statement here.



How does one "condescend" to what he already is? God must be other than what He condescended to do.


----------



## OPC'n

armourbearer said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> God could have never voluntarily condescended if He were wholly other than us. The WCF doesn't support the doctrine of wholly other in its statement here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does one "condescend" to what he already is? God must be other than what He condescended to do.
Click to expand...



He didn't condescend to what He already is. He is Who He is in all of eternity. He didn't have to change Who He is in order to condescend and give us a covenant. That was for eternity what He planned, and therefore, although they use this word it is merely for our understanding that God is other than us but because He for eternity "decided" to condescend and give us a covenant He is not wholly other. If He were wholly other, He could have never condescended and to give us a covenant. The mere fact that you know *ANYTHING* about God and have information about God in your head is evidence that He is not wholly other. He is other but not wholly other.

-----Added 9/11/2009 at 11:08:04 EST-----



armourbearer said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I'm not saying that we should desire to be like God in His divine nature but like it or not we shall be like Him. 1John 3:2 "Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The text also says that He shall appear. Surely you do not think the divine nature shall appear. The referent must be to Christ. Therefore the conformity shall be to Christ's likeness.
Click to expand...


Of course the reference is about Christ in His human form since He did raise from the grave and still has His human body. Do you believe that it is only a resurrected body that we will be like Him? You do not believe that we will be free of sin and exhibit prefect righteousness and perfect love? To exhibit anything is to possess those qualities....otherwise how could one exhibit them?

-----Added 9/11/2009 at 11:10:02 EST-----



armourbearer said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is. And I agree that He *is* His attributes and there lies the difference between Him and His creation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is it not wholly other "to be" rather than "to become?" I think you may be so determined to defend Sproul on this point that you are not taking time to think through the ramifications of what you are affirming.
Click to expand...


I think you are confusing "other" with "wholly other". No one is saying that God isn't "other" we are just saying that He isn't "wholly other".


----------



## MW

OPC'n said:


> If He were wholly other, He could have never condescended and to give us a covenant. The mere fact that you know *ANYTHING* about God and have information about God in your head is evidence that He is not wholly other.



I think you are failing to grasp the point that what we know about God is a condescension to our creaturely limitations. Certainly the revelation is not wholly other, but that is because it is a condescension. What we know about God is not God as He is in Himself but God as He has condescended to reveal Himself.



OPC'n said:


> Of course the reference is about Christ in His human form since He did raise from the grave and still has His human body. Do you believe that it is only a resurrected body that we will be like Him? You do not believe that we will be free of sin and exhibit prefect righteousness and perfect love? To exhibit anything is to possess those qualities....otherwise how could one exhibit them?



I believe we will be free from sin and possess those attributes insofar as they are creaturely perfections; that is, they will always be communicated to us by God; we will never possess them essentially. But the very fact I am forced to make that qualification shows there is an "otherness" to these perfections which the creature cannot experience.


----------



## Brian Withnell

armourbearer said:


> Of course God is wholly other. Westminster Confession 7.1. Rejecting God's incomprehensibility is not a legitimate way to refute neo-orthodoxy's affirmation of it. It is rather in the area of God's knowability through condescending revelation that neo-orthodoxy must be challenged.



We are created in his image. If we are in his image, though tainted by sin, we cannot be "wholly other" which would mean totally different ... we are an image, and an image has some similarity with the object of which it is an image.

To the extent we are in the image of God, we have some commonality with God. In fact we talk about communicable and incommunicable traits of God. If there are communicable traits, and God has in fact communicated those traits upon his creatures, then we cannot be wholly other.


----------



## OPC'n

armourbearer said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> If He were wholly other, He could have never condescended and to give us a covenant. The mere fact that you know *ANYTHING* about God and have information about God in your head is evidence that He is not wholly other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are failing to grasp the point that what we know about God is a condescension to our creaturely limitations. Certainly the revelation is not wholly other, but that is because it is a condescension. What we know about God is not God as He is in Himself but God as He has condescended to reveal Himself.
Click to expand...


Which makes Him other and incomprehensible but not wholly other and not wholly incomprehensible.




OPC'n said:


> Of course the reference is about Christ in His human form since He did raise from the grave and still has His human body. Do you believe that it is only a resurrected body that we will be like Him? You do not believe that we will be free of sin and exhibit prefect righteousness and perfect love? To exhibit anything is to possess those qualities....otherwise how could one exhibit them?





armourbearer said:


> believe we will be free from sin and possess those attributes insofar as they are creaturely perfections; that is, they will always be communicated to us by God; we will never possess them essentially. But the very fact I am forced to make that qualification shows there is an "otherness" to these perfections which the creature cannot experience.



I can agree that we will not possess these attributes apart from God, yes, with that I agree and never thought otherwise. We will never exist apart from God....He will always hold us and keep us in all aspects. We will never be independent from God. I never meant to say that if that's what how I sounded. But the fact that they are communicated to us and that we possess them by the sheer fact that God is constantly giving them to us, shows that He is not wholly other.


----------



## Brian Withnell

armourbearer said:


> No; what I am saying is that they are "communicated;" the very fact that they are communicated means that the creature can never possess them essentially. If God only "possesses" them essentially then it is obvious that God is wholly other even in the "possession" of these communicable attributes. Which is why reformed divines prefer to say that He "is" them rather than "possesses" them.



I think this clears things a little. What I would disagree with is that if God communicated attributes to his creatures that are part of his being in such a way as the attribute is part of the being of the creature, then God has made the creature _in his being_ reflective of God, and therefore the creature is not totally different (even if mutably) from God.

Immutability is also part of the communicable traits, in that in the age to come, those who are found in Christ will be immutably reflecting perfectly (without flaw, not completely) the image of God.


----------



## MW

OPC'n said:


> Which makes Him other and incomprehensible but not wholly other and not wholly incomprehensible.



So do you affirm that man can know God as He is in Himself or only as He has condescendingly revealed Himself. If the former, then you should omit the adjective "wholly" before "other." If the latter, then you are ascribing a whole otherness to God which man cannot know.



OPC'n said:


> But the fact that they are communicated to us and that we possess them by the sheer fact that God is constantly giving them to us, shows that He is not wholly other.



This does not follow. God is His attributes essentially and simply. Man merely possesses likenesses of them. "Thou only art holy." "The only wise God." "There is one good." The Scriptures everywhere speak of these attributes as belonging to God in a unique way that they cannot belong to any other. If that is the case, then He is "wholly other" even in the "possession" of communicable attributes.


----------



## MW

Brian Withnell said:


> Immutability is also part of the communicable traits, in that in the age to come, those who are found in Christ will be immutably reflecting perfectly (without flaw, not completely) the image of God.



Unless you are prepared to ascribe an absolute perfection and changelessness to the saints, this statement is badly phrased and irrelevant to the present discussion. The fact that there is changelessness so far as moral perfection is concerned does not mean there is changelessness so far as condition is concerned. There His servants will serve Him and follow the Lamb whithersoever He goeth. Growth of capacity to know and enjoy God is assumed.


----------



## Brian Withnell

armourbearer said:


> Man merely possesses likenesses of them. "Thou only art holy." "The only wise God." "There is one good." The Scriptures everywhere speak of these attributes as belonging to God in a unique way that they cannot belong to any other. If that is the case, then He is "wholly other" even in the "possession" of communicable attributes.



Then would you say that God could not impart some attribute, which is part of his nature, into the nature of the creature, such that it is as much in the being of the creature as it is in the being of God? It seems that for those in heaven, waiting the redemption of their bodies, have the quality of immutable purity. It may be that it is from God and that God is purity in a way that is has some differences from his creatures, but that the redeemed are in fact pure ... which is similar to (not totally different from) God.


----------



## MW

Brian Withnell said:


> Then would you say that God could not impart some attribute, which is part of his nature, into the nature of the creature, such that it is as much in the being of the creature as it is in the being of God?



To affirm that God could or would impart such would be "impious and blasphemous," WCF 26:3.


----------



## Brian Withnell

armourbearer said:


> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then would you say that God could not impart some attribute, which is part of his nature, into the nature of the creature, such that it is as much in the being of the creature as it is in the being of God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To affirm that God could or would impart such would be "impious and blasphemous," WCF 26:3.
Click to expand...


There is a difference between substance and attribute. Attributes are not the substance.


----------



## MW

Brian Withnell said:


> There is a difference between substance and attribute. Attributes are not the substance.



Turretin: "Can the divine attributes be really distinguished from the divine essence? We deny against the Socinians." (Institutes, 1:187.)


----------



## Brian Withnell

Sorry, I don't necessarily think Turretin is infallible, can you point to anything that says attributes and substance are inseparable in either the Westminster Standards or scripture?


----------



## Prufrock

Brian, since Rev. Winzer is not online at the moment, I'll give you a quick answer: this is certainly not peculiar to Turretin -- or even to Reformed theology. A theologian who denies the simplicity of God (or the identification of the attributes of God one with another and with the very essence of God) stands outside catholic orthodoxy. As God is not a composite being, in whom there are no accidents, his attributes _are_ his singular essence.


----------



## Brian Withnell

I'm not sure I understand ... unless there is a difference in the terms here from what is common use.

If an attribute is communicable (as opposed to incommunicable) then it would seem that there could not be any communicable attributes, and none of God's attributes would be communicable as God's essence is not communicable.


----------



## MW

Brian Withnell said:


> Sorry, I don't necessarily think Turretin is infallible, can you point to anything that says attributes and substance are inseparable in either the Westminster Standards or scripture?



"Most absolute," WCF 2.1. Exodus 3:14, "I am that I am."


----------



## Prufrock

Brian, that's exactly the point our theologians had to make. Since Turretin has already been brought up, I'll quote his brief explication of your statement:


> In order to understand the distinction, note that communication is twofold: one essential and formal (through the intrinsic being of a thing); the other by resemblance and analogy (with respect to the effects and works). As to the former, we say all the properties of God are equally incommunicable, no more capable of being communicated than the divine essence. Otherwise they would cease to be properties. But the latter we confess can be granted since God produces in creatures (especially in rational creatures) effects analogous to his own properties, such as goodness, justice, wisdom, etc. (Institutes, III.VI.ii)


Those properties which are called communicable are only so by way of analogy, or through a similitude of effect.


----------



## OPC'n

armourbearer said:


> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then would you say that God could not impart some attribute, which is part of his nature, into the nature of the creature, such that it is as much in the being of the creature as it is in the being of God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To affirm that God could or would impart such would be "impious and blasphemous," WCF 26:3.
Click to expand...


WCF 26:3 III. "This communion, which the saints have with Christ, doth not make them in any wise, partakers of the substance of His Godhead; or to be equal with Christ, in any respect: either of which to affirm is impious and blasphemous. Nor doth their communion one with another, as saints, take away, or infringe the title or property which each man hath in his goods and possessions." 

This is what they are saying as being impious and blasphemous. Us stating that we are divine would be impious and blasphemous. But there are (even according to your own statement) communicable attributes of God given to us even though we don't possess them outside of God. Therefore, this statement of the WCF cannot be talking about the communicable attributes of God for we do partake in His love, peace, joy, etc. We are heirs and co-heirs of Christ.


----------



## Brian Withnell

There seems to be some philosophical framework that I seem to be missing. Granted, God is immutable because of his essence. His very being causes immutability. In the sense that a creature is capable of being immutable (saints in glory), while that immutability is dependent immutability (it depends on the immutability of God) it is still immutability. The immutability of the creature is not totally different from (it is analogous to) the immutability of the Creator. That would argue that the creature is not totally different from the creator ... the analogy would still be present, which is not complete difference, even if it is very different. Either that or I'm still not understanding what you are saying Paul.


----------



## Prufrock

Sarah,

I do believe Rev. Winzer's quotation of that section of the confession was actually most fitting; and I am quite impressed by it, as I would have never thought of applying that section of the confession to the issue at hand. But, since the attributes _in a real sense_ would only be communicable by communication of an essence (which does not even make sense), to claim that we truly participate in any of the divine attributes in any manner _other_ than by resemblance or analogy is to claim that we are partakers of the divine substance. His reference is not as out of context as it may initially seem.


----------



## MW

OPC'n said:


> doth not make them in any wise, *partakers of the substance of His Godhead*;



Is the communicable attribute "of the substance of the Godhead," or do you conceive of it as being separate from God's "substance?" I am sorry, but your attachment to Sproul is causing you to tread theological paths which are "dangerous" at best.


----------



## OPC'n

armourbearer said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which makes Him other and incomprehensible but not wholly other and not wholly incomprehensible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So do you affirm that man can know God as He is in Himself or only as He has condescendingly revealed Himself. If the former, then you should omit the adjective "wholly" before "other." If the latter, then you are ascribing a whole otherness to God which man cannot know.
Click to expand...


I, of course, believe that we can only know Him as He has condescendingly revealed Himself. How can He reveal Himself if He is wholly other? Mankind would not understand one word of what He said if He were wholly other. 



OPC'n said:


> But the fact that they are communicated to us and that we possess them by the sheer fact that God is constantly giving them to us, shows that He is not wholly other.





armourbearer said:


> does not follow. God is His attributes essentially and simply. Man merely possesses likenesses of them. "Thou only art holy." "The only wise God." "There is one good." The Scriptures everywhere speak of these attributes as belonging to God in a unique way that they cannot belong to any other. If that is the case, then He is "wholly other" even in the "possession" of communicable attributes.




They do belong to God in a unique way in that He is His attributes. That is how He is "other" than us. Even if I agree that we will never partake in His communicable attributes (which I don't agree but for the sake of argument) and only reflect them or in some mystical way show them off, the fact that I could even reflect His communicable attributes shows that He is not wholly other, otherwise, I wouldn't even be able to reflect His communicable attributes.....I would know *NOTHING* about them....their very existence would allude me and all of mankind.


----------



## Prufrock

Brian, my involvement in this thread can be only very limited to the express topic you raised in post #40. I cannot speak to what Mr. Sproul says, as I have not listened to his lecture, and thus do not know in what sense he suggests we have similitude to God.


----------



## MW

OPC'n said:


> I, of course, believe that we can only know Him as He has condescendingly revealed Himself. How can He reveal Himself if He is wholly other? Mankind would not understand one word of what He said if He were wholly other.



If you can only know Him as He has condescendingly revealed Himself, and you cannot know Him as He is in Himself, then you yourself affirm that He is wholly other as He is in Himself. I am going to ask as plainly as I can -- do you know anything of God as He is in Himself so as to be able to say He is not wholly other?

How can He reveal Himself if He is wholly other? By condescension. What mankind knows is a condescending revelation of God.


----------



## OPC'n

Prufrock said:


> Sarah,
> 
> I do believe Rev. Winzer's quotation of that section of the confession was actually most fitting; and I am quite impressed by it, as I would have never thought of applying that section of the confession to the issue at hand. But, since the attributes _in a real sense_ would only be communicable by communication of an essence (which does not even make sense), to claim that we truly participate in any of the divine attributes in any manner _other_ than by resemblance or analogy is to claim that we are partakers of the divine substance. His reference is not as out of context as it may initially seem.



Alright, so what does "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined *to be conformed to the image of his Son*, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers." mean to you guys? Do you believe that this only applies to our physical bodies? What are we inheriting with Christ exactly? What is the point in ridding us of sin and making us perfectly free of sin if we will then be blank slates. Are we going to be perfectly sinless mirrors where we will reflect love joy peace etc but never experience those attributes never partake of them? Show me Scripture which states such a thing. I in fact see something different....that we are being made into Christ's image not just having a physically raised body.


----------



## Prufrock

Sarah, we most emphatically _do_ partake of the divine nature...analogically.


----------



## Brian Withnell

That is what I was hoping to address Paul. The attribute of immutability is one that is just an example ... not anything of what Mr. Sproul stated (I don't know as he did say anything about immutability or not).

My use of immutability is that it is an attribute of God, and God communicates that attribute to the saints (creatures). Those in glory are in fact immutable (dependently so, but immutable none-the-less). That would seem to say that while we do not share the essence of God, we do have applied to our being in glory at least that one attribute.

While the substance of God is not anything that we share, it would seem an attribute of the substance (I don't know any other way of saying it) can be an attribute of our substance even if the two are different substances. If I were to try to make an analogy, I could look at different elements that have the same characters. That seems crass by comparison, but I'm not sure how to express the thoughts otherwise.

How is it that immutability is immutability if they are not the same? It might be different in some ways, but there have to be some similarities or we should invent totally different words for every attribute of God.


----------



## OPC'n

armourbearer said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> I, of course, believe that we can only know Him as He has condescendingly revealed Himself. How can He reveal Himself if He is wholly other? Mankind would not understand one word of what He said if He were wholly other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you can only know Him as He has condescendingly revealed Himself, and you cannot know Him as He is in Himself, then you yourself affirm that He is wholly other as He is in Himself. I am going to ask as plainly as I can -- do you know anything of God as He is in Himself so as to be able to say He is not wholly other?
> 
> How can He reveal Himself if He is wholly other? By condescension. What mankind knows is a condescending revelation of God.
Click to expand...


So a mirror image of Who He is is really all we know of Him is what you are saying I believe? This condescending knowledge of God that He has given to us makes Him not wholly other. The fact that He could communicate to us *anything* about Himself in *any fashion* on *any level* is proof that He is not wholly other. For all the time that you have wasted on me you could have listened to Sproul's sermon.

-----Added 9/12/2009 at 01:59:07 EST-----



Prufrock said:


> Sarah, we most emphatically _do_ partake of the divine nature...analogically.



That doesn't answer my question....I'm not saying that we will be divine. I don't believe that the WCF is speaking of God's communicable attributes but instead is speaking of His non-communicable attributes. To be righteous without sin, is partaking of God. Do you believe that Adam and Eve were righteous with out sin? Where did they get that righteousness from? They certainly didn't get it from themselves. God made man in His image.


----------



## Brian Withnell

Paul, in your statement to Sarah, you said "we most emphatically do partake of the divine nature...analogically." That would seem to imply that there is at least analogically similitude. That would seem to force "totally different" to not be true.

I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around it, and I'd like to make sure I understand what you are saying.


----------



## MW

OPC'n said:


> For all the time that you have wasted on me you could have listened to Sproul's sermon.



I don't think I have wasted any time on you if you now realise that God in Himself is wholly other. OTOH, I have no way of helping Sproul to a better view of God by merely listening to him.


----------



## OPC'n

Prufrock said:


> Sarah,
> 
> I do believe Rev. Winzer's quotation of that section of the confession was actually most fitting; and I am quite impressed by it, as I would have never thought of applying that section of the confession to the issue at hand. But, since the attributes _in a real sense_ would only be communicable by communication of an essence (which does not even make sense), to claim that we truly participate in any of the divine attributes in any manner _other_ than by resemblance or analogy is to claim that we are partakers of the divine substance. His reference is not as out of context as it may initially seem.





armourbearer said:


> I believe we will be free from sin and possess those attributes insofar as they are creaturely perfections; that is, they will always be communicated to us by God; we will never possess them essentially....



Would this not be participating in the divine attributes of God? We will never possess His attribute insofar as to be independent of God, but Armourbearer clearly states here that we will partake of His attributes in a continual communicative manner. It seems that he is saying two different things. We either don't partake in God's attributes in any manner so as to avoid blasphemy which he states the WCF says or we do partake in His attributes in the manner that "they will always be communicated to us by God but never possess them essentially" which he stated earlier.


----------



## Brian Withnell

Paul, can two different substances have a common attribute? While God's attributes are not separable from his substance, it would seem that some of those attributes could exist in the substance of creatures even if in creatures they are separable from substance. How would that violate scripture?


----------



## Prufrock

Brian, forgive the brevity of this answer -- it's very late, and I need to get to sleep. Perhaps our resident Aussie who stirs while we all sleep will be around, as he can give far better and more learned/accurate answers anyway. But here are a couple of points:

1.) Your question still paints the picture of the divine attributes as _things_ within the essence. If that is our perspective, then it will follow by course that there will be a great similitude between the "thing" which is in God and the "thing" which is in us. If, however, we are able to conceive of the attributes as differing only virtually and eminently, or as the essence itself considered now under this perspective, now under that, then the issue largely disappears. We are able to distinguish "the mercy of God" as the essence itself considered as to the effect which it produces in man. An affection accidental to man which produces similar effects to this is thereby analogically called mercy.

2.) The finite mind cannot comprehend the divine essence (finitum non capax infiniti); we can, however, conceive of the divinely revealed ectype, accommodated to the the capacities of a finite mind. The simple fact, though, yet remains: we cannot know God as he is in himself; and the proportionality between the infinite and finite spans too vast a chasm to draw any _real_ comparison. Thus, we are left with use of the ectype of theology -- which is true, but finitely. 

If I have not related this well enough to the topic, I apologize (I am quite tired). I will review the thread again tomorrow, perhaps listen to the lecture. But again, there are many here who are far more capable of giving suitable answers on this matter. When these topics arise, I generally feel as though I am playing in the sandbox with my plastic shovel while the "big people" are using bulldozers on the next lot.


----------



## OPC'n

Posting this again bc I think it's important:



Prufrock said:


> Sarah,
> 
> I do believe Rev. Winzer's quotation of that section of the confession was actually most fitting; and I am quite impressed by it, as I would have never thought of applying that section of the confession to the issue at hand. But, since the attributes _in a real sense_ would only be communicable by communication of an essence (which does not even make sense), to claim that we truly participate in any of the divine attributes in any manner _other_ than by resemblance or analogy is to claim that we are partakers of the divine substance. His reference is not as out of context as it may initially seem.





armourbearer said:


> I believe we will be free from sin and possess those attributes insofar as they are creaturely perfections; that is, they will always be communicated to us by God; we will never possess them essentially....



Would this not be participating in the divine attributes of God? We will never possess His attribute insofar as to be independent of God, but Armourbearer clearly states here that we will partake of His attributes in a continual communicative manner. It seems that he is saying two different things. We either don't partake in God's attributes in any manner so as to avoid blasphemy which he states the WCF says or we do partake in His attributes in the manner that "they will always be communicated to us by God but never possess them essentially" which he stated earlier.


----------



## MW

OPC'n said:


> Would this not be participating in the divine attributes of God? We will never possess His attribute insofar as to be independent of God, but Armourbearer clearly states here that we will partake of His attributes in a continual communicative manner. It seems that he is saying two different things. We either don't partake in God's attributes in any manner so as to avoid blasphemy which he states the WCF says or we do partake in His attributes in the manner that "they will always be communicated to us by God but never possess them essentially" which he stated earlier.



If we do not possess them essentially then we do not really possess the attributes themselves but mere reflections or effects of them. Jesus, in His perfect humanity, refused to be called "good" without a believing recognition of His Deity, Matthew 19:17. Seraphim cover their glory in the presence of the Lord God Almighty. Redeemed humanity only recognises and worships the attributes of God in glory.


----------



## OPC'n

armourbearer said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would this not be participating in the divine attributes of God? We will never possess His attribute insofar as to be independent of God, but Armourbearer clearly states here that we will partake of His attributes in a continual communicative manner. It seems that he is saying two different things. We either don't partake in God's attributes in any manner so as to avoid blasphemy which he states the WCF says or we do partake in His attributes in the manner that "they will always be communicated to us by God but never possess them essentially" which he stated earlier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we do not possess them essentially then we do not really possess the attributes themselves but mere reflections or effects of them. Jesus, in His perfect humanity, refused to be called "good" without a believing recognition of His Deity, Matthew 19:17. Seraphim cover their glory in the presence of the Lord God Almighty. Redeemed humanity only recognises and worships the attributes of God in glory.
Click to expand...


So you believe that our inheritance and us being co-inheritors with Christ is to reflect God's attributes? Wouldn't that demote Christ? If we are co-inheritors with Christ, that means we are inheriting the same thing He is. What is He inheriting? Just a resurrected body and a new physical earth? One more question: do you believe that Adam and Eve only reflected righteousness and that they were not righteous? I"m not sure how it happened but we are now talking about two different things. This thread was about God not being wholly other and now we are on the subject of His children not being able to receive His "communicable" attributes. I see how they intertwine but one of these subjects alone is big enough to debate without having both of them. I'm going to for argument's sake (and to get back to the OP) say that I agree with you that we will not be made into the image of Christ, we will not have any love or peace or joy etc, that we will be sinless blank mirrors that only mirror who God is......us being able to do this amount of reflecting of God shows that God is not "wholly other" only "other" than us.


----------



## Brian Withnell

Prufrock said:


> Brian, forgive the brevity of this answer -- it's very late, and I need to get to sleep. Perhaps our resident Aussie who stirs while we all sleep will be around, as he can give far better and more learned/accurate answers anyway. But here are a couple of points:
> 
> 1.) Your question still paints the picture of the divine attributes as _things_ within the essence. If that is our perspective, then it will follow by course that there will be a great similitude between the "thing" which is in God and the "thing" which is in us. If, however, we are able to conceive of the attributes as differing only virtually and eminently, or as the essence itself considered now under this perspective, now under that, then the issue largely disappears. We are able to distinguish "the mercy of God" as the essence itself considered as to the effect which it produces in man. An affection accidental to man which produces similar effects to this is thereby analogically called mercy.
> 
> 2.) The finite mind cannot comprehend the divine essence (finitum non capax infiniti); we can, however, conceive of the divinely revealed ectype, accommodated to the the capacities of a finite mind. The simple fact, though, yet remains: we cannot know God as he is in himself; and the proportionality between the infinite and finite spans too vast a chasm to draw any _real_ comparison. Thus, we are left with use of the ectype of theology -- which is true, but finitely.
> 
> If I have not related this well enough to the topic, I apologize (I am quite tired). I will review the thread again tomorrow, perhaps listen to the lecture. But again, there are many here who are far more capable of giving suitable answers on this matter. When these topics arise, I generally feel as though I am playing in the sandbox with my plastic shovel while the "big people" are using steam shovels on the next lot.



Do not belittle your powers of explanation. I might be very adept at calculus, but if I cannot explain calculus, it is of no use to anyone but myself. I am looking to understand, and you seem patient with my poor mind.

I've got a little better understanding of what you are saying (I think). From what I can tell, you are saying (correctly, from what I understand) that the attributes of God are not individual nor composite, but whole so that it isn't really possible to talk about any of the attributes as being cut from the whole and examined "by itself". But I'm not sure how that affects the concept of "wholly other" (which I take to be "totally different") even if in creatures, attributes are separable and dependent. I don't necessarily agree that Sproul is right with his statement that we could have no knowledge of God if he was totally different from us ... I understand the philosophy and his wanting to combat neo-orthodoxy stemming from Bart ... but what we do know about God is because God has made it known (we really could not have any knowledge of God unless God had made it plain).

My problem is with "wholly other" from the standpoint of God being both eminent and transcendent at the same time. If God can be (even through condescension) eminent, it would seem that God can be something other than "totally different". If we are made in his likeness, we are not totally different (wholly other) if in no other way than we bear the image of God, even if in infinitesimally small and sin distorted ways that are finite rather than infinite.

At this point, I'm getting a little tired myself (and I hope I'm still making some sense).


----------



## MW

OPC'n said:


> I'm going to for argument's sake (and to get back to the OP) say that I agree with you that we will not be made into the image of Christ, we will not have any love or peace or joy etc, that we will be sinless blank mirrors that only mirror who God is......us being able to do this amount of reflecting of God shows that God is not "wholly other" only "other" than us.



Of course you are agreeing with a figment of your own imagination because I have never said any such thing.

As noted, if we do not possess these attributes essentially, then obviously there is a qualitative difference between God and us in the "possession" of love. He is love. If Jesus in His perfect humanity would not call Himself good in the same sense that God is good, who are we to claim more?


----------



## OPC'n

armourbearer said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to for argument's sake (and to get back to the OP) say that I agree with you that we will not be made into the image of Christ, we will not have any love or peace or joy etc, that we will be sinless blank mirrors that only mirror who God is......us being able to do this amount of reflecting of God shows that God is not "wholly other" only "other" than us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you are agreeing with a figment of your own imagination because I have never said any such thing.
> 
> As noted, if we do not possess these attributes essentially, then obviously there is a qualitative difference between God and us in the "possession" of love. He is love. If Jesus in His perfect humanity would not call Himself good in the same sense that God is good, who are we to claim more?
Click to expand...


Christ could call Himself good in His perfect humanity. The only reason He said "why call me good only God is good" is bc He knew the guy didn't believe He was God and he thought Christ was a mere man. Christ never believed that as fully man He wasn't good. For Him to believe that would be to divide His natures. We cannot divide His natures only distinguish between them.


----------



## MW

OPC'n said:


> Christ could call Himself good in His perfect humanity. The only reason He said "why call me good only God is good" is bc He knew the guy didn't believe He was God and he thought Christ was a mere man. Christ never believed that as fully man He wasn't good. For Him to believe that would be to divide His natures. We cannot divide His natures only distinguish between them.



You say that Christ did not call Himself good because this man did not believe He was God. That is the point!

You say we cannot divide the natures, only distinguish them. We distinguish things that are different. They are "two distinct natures in one Person for ever." I think you meant to say we cannot separate them. I fully concur. But we divide what belongs to the manhood so as to distinguish it from what belongs to the Godhood.


----------



## Brian Withnell

armourbearer said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to for argument's sake (and to get back to the OP) say that I agree with you that we will not be made into the image of Christ, we will not have any love or peace or joy etc, that we will be sinless blank mirrors that only mirror who God is......us being able to do this amount of reflecting of God shows that God is not "wholly other" only "other" than us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you are agreeing with a figment of your own imagination because I have never said any such thing.
> 
> As noted, if we do not possess these attributes essentially, then obviously there is a qualitative difference between God and us in the "possession" of love. He is love. If Jesus in His perfect humanity would not call Himself good in the same sense that God is good, who are we to claim more?
Click to expand...


Is the qualitative difference complete and total difference? I think that is what is the confusion. Is the truthfulness of a glorified saint totally and completely different from truth which is God? If it is, would that not mean that glorified saints are liars even in glory? It would seem that any being that reflects truth has some similarity to God.


----------



## MW

Brian Withnell said:


> Is the truthfulness of a glorified saint totally and completely different from truth which is God?



Yes. It does not make the saints liars because the truth they believe is that which is condescendingly revealed by God. It contains all the qualities of truth that creaturely limitation requires.


----------



## OPC'n

armourbearer said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to for argument's sake (and to get back to the OP) say that I agree with you that we will not be made into the image of Christ, we will not have any love or peace or joy etc, that we will be sinless blank mirrors that only mirror who God is......us being able to do this amount of reflecting of God shows that God is not "wholly other" only "other" than us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you are agreeing with a figment of your own imagination because I have never said any such thing.
> 
> As noted, if we do not possess these attributes essentially, then obviously there is a qualitative difference between God and us in the "possession" of love. He is love.
Click to expand...


You did say such a thing. You said that the WCF stated that to partake in any of the attributes of God in any fashion would be blasphemy. God is His attributes....there is nothing more to Him. If we won't partake in any of His attributes and only mirror/reflect them, then we will not have any peace, joy, love, etc. To reflect something isn't to experience that something. According to your logic, we don't and will not experience the goodness of God bc that would be partaking of the Godhead. However, soooooooo many Scriptures tell us to be like Christ and other Scriptures tell us to have His communicable attributes 

Galatians 5:22


> 22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. 24And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.



And Christ says that you will know him by his fruit.....what fruit? The fruit in Galatians 5? Those are communicable attributes of God. You have a different doctrine of which I have never heard in the reformed circles in which I dwell. I'll keep what I have always known to be true and I will have to agree with Sproul on the "wholly otherness" of God. Peace!


----------



## MW

OPC'n said:


> You did say such a thing. You said that the WCF stated that to partake in any of the attributes of God in any fashion would be blasphemy. God is His attributes....there is nothing more to Him. If we won't partake in any of His attributes and only mirror/reflect them, then we will not have any peace, joy, love, etc. To reflect something isn't to experience that something.



This is just another false dilemma. The bottle that reflects the sun also experiences its ray and its heat. It just doesn't become the sun in the process.


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello OPC'n and Matthew, 



Matthew said:


> If God only "possesses" them essentially then it is obvious that God is wholly other even in the "possession" of these communicable attributes.



Matthew, here is another one of your "obvious" conclusions. You speak of only God possessing communicable attributes 'essentially'. What do you mean by this? I understand the philosophical distinction between 'essential' and 'accidental'. Is that what you are talking about? Also, how does it follow from this that God is "wholly other," and what do you mean by "wholly other?" If you simply point me to WCF 7.1, then please define "wholly other" in those terms and make your argument explicit for us all to see. 

Brian


----------



## MW

Brian Bosse said:


> Matthew, here is another one of your "obvious" conclusions. You speak of only God possessing communicable attributes 'essentially'. What do you mean by this? I understand the philosophical distinction between 'essential' and 'accidental'. Is that what you are talking about? Also, how does it follow from this that God is "wholly other," and what do you mean by "wholly other?" If you simply point me to WCF 7.1, then please define "wholly other" in those terms and make your argument explicit for us all to see.



Brian, these questions have already been treated in the thread. If you take some time to consider what has been written the answers will be ready to hand.


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello Matthew,

Please point to me the appropriate posts of yours where you define what you mean by 'essential,' where you have defined 'wholly other' in terms of WCF 7.1., and where you have made your argument explicit. But better yet, why not just tell me in clear precise language these things? It should not take you much time to do so.

Brian


----------



## MW

Brian Bosse said:


> But better yet, why not just tell me in clear precise language these things?



1. Essentially. Belonging to His essence. Not qualities distinct from Himself, but they are God Himself.

2. WCF 7.1. God must condescend and reveal Himself to human capacity in order for men to know anything of God. Thus men cannot know God as He is in Himself but only as He has condescended to make Himself known.


----------



## discipulo

armourbearer said:


> Of course God is wholly other. Westminster Confession 7.1. Rejecting God's incomprehensibility is not a legitimate way to refute neo-orthodoxy's affirmation of it. It is rather in the area of God's knowability through condescending revelation that neo-orthodoxy must be challenged.



Do you suggest taking Barth by his denial of Natural Revelation, not taking

Romans 1:18-21 seriously?


----------



## Brian Withnell

armourbearer said:


> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is the truthfulness of a glorified saint totally and completely different from truth which is God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. It does not make the saints liars because the truth they believe is that which is condescendingly revealed by God. It contains all the qualities of truth that creaturely limitation requires.
Click to expand...


Totally and completely different would be disjoint from ... it would not be truth, but lies. The quality would be totally different, but the facts (as far as the limits of that truth go) would be exactly the same explicitly because of the condescension of God. If what the glorified saints know as true is disjoint from (that is, what they know as truth is completely different than what is true truth) then they are deceived. I can see limited compared to limitless, I can see infinitesimal compared to infinite, but disjoint (that is nothing in common, completely and wholly other) would mean what they see as truth is falsehood and lies not by comparison, but actually and completely false.

Do you see what I'm saying? I'm really trying to grasp how you can have a saint in glory have any knowledge, have any truth, and not have it be some finite subset of what God, who cannot lie, has said (even through condescention). If God condescendingly gives some finite set of truth to his creatures, then that truth is true truth and contains no falsehood ... it is, limited as it is by it being less than infinite, common as to the content with the truth that is God, or it is falsehood and lies. I don't see there can be any middle. There can be limited truth, but if the truth revealed is not extended by conjecture, it is true truth, and that would have to be common with God's truth at the points at which the revealed truth touches.

If not, then please define, simply and completely, what is meant by "true". (I have always through of "true" meaning in concert with the nature and character of God; the opposite of false; what is, and not what is not.)

If we have no truth, if what we know is not (even by condescention) in concert with God's truth, then we know nothing at all. What is revealed (what God condescends to reveal) if it is not common with what is God's truth, what does that say about revelation?


----------



## py3ak

Some background from Aquinas may be helpful. If you haven't read Aquinas before, he first states arguments on both sides of the question being discussed, then gives his own view, and answers the objections from the other side. So P(1)-Q(4)-A(3)-RO(1) signifies Part 1, Question 4, Article 3, Reply to Objection 1.



> *Summa Theologica, P(1)-Q(4)-A(3)​*
> Whether any creature can be like God?​
> *P(1)-Q(4)-A(3)-O(1)* — It seems that no creature can be like God. For it is written (Psalm 85:8):
> “There is none among the gods like unto Thee, O Lord.” But of all creatures the most excellent are those which are called participation gods. Therefore still less can other creatures be said to be like God.
> 
> *P(1)-Q(4)-A(3)-O(2)* — Further, likeness implies comparison. But there can be no comparison between things in a different “genus.” Therefore neither can there be any likeness. Thus we do not say that sweetness is like whiteness. But no creature is in the same “genus” as God: since God is no “genus,” as shown above (Q(3), A(5)). Therefore no creature is like God.
> 
> *P(1)-Q(4)-A(3)-O(3)* — Further, we speak of those things as like which agree in form. But nothing can agree with God in form; for, save in God alone, essence and existence differ. Therefore no creature can be like to God.
> 
> *P(1)-Q(4)-A(3)-O(4)* — Further, among like things there is mutual likeness; for like is like to like. If therefore any creature is like God, God will be like some creature, which is against what is said by Isaias: “To whom have you likened God?” (<234018>Isaiah 40:18).
> 
> *P(1)-Q(4)-A(3)* — On the contrary, It is written:
> “Let us make man to our image and likeness” (Genesis 1:26), and:
> “When He shall appear we shall be like to Him” (John 3:2).
> 
> *P(1)-Q(4)-A(3)* — I answer that, Since likeness is based upon agreement or communication in form, it varies according to the many modes of communication in form. Some things are said to be like, which communicate in the same form according to the same formality, and according to the same mode; and these are said to be not merely like, but equal in their likeness; as two things equally white are said to be alike in whiteness; and this is the most perfect likeness. In another way, we speak of things as alike which communicate in form according to the same formality, though not according to the same measure, but according to more or less, as something less white is said to be like another thing more white; and this is imperfect likeness. In a third way some things are said to be alike which communicate in the same form, but not according to the same formality; as we see in non-univocal agents. For since every agent reproduces itself so far as it is an agent, and everything acts according to the manner of its form, the effect must in some way resemble the form of the agent. If therefore the agent is contained in the same species as its effect, there will be a likeness in form between that which makes and that which is made, according to the same formality of the species; as man reproduces man. If, however, the agent and its effect are not contained in the same species, there will be a likeness, but not according to the formality of the same species; as things generated by the sun’s heat may be in some sort spoken of as like the sun, not as though they received the form of the sun in its specific likeness, but in its generic likeness. Therefore if there is an agent not contained in any “genus,” its effect will still more distantly reproduce the form of the agent, not, that is, so as to participate in the likeness of the agent’s form according to the same specific or generic formality, but only according to some sort of analogy; as existence is common to all. In this way all created things, so far as they are beings, are like God as the first and universal principle of all being.
> 
> *P(1)-Q(4)-A(3)-RO(1)* — As Dionysius says (Div. Nom. ix), when Holy Writ declares that nothing is like God, it does not mean to deny all likeness to Him. For, “the same things can be like and unlike to God: like, according as they imitate Him, as far as He, Who is not perfectly imitable, can be imitated; unlike according as they fall short of their cause,” not merely in intensity and remission, as that which is less white falls short of that which is more white; but because they are not in agreement, specifically or generically.
> 
> *P(1)-Q(4)-A(3)-RO(2)* — God is not related to creatures as though belonging to a different “genus,” but as transcending every “genus,” and as the principle of all “genera.”
> 
> *P(1)-Q(4)-A(3)-RO(3)* — Likeness of creatures to God is not affirmed on account of agreement in form according to the formality of the same genus or species, but solely according to analogy, inasmuch as God is essential being, whereas other things are beings by participation.
> 
> *P(1)-Q(4)-A(3)-RO(4)* — Although it may be admitted that creatures are in some sort like God, it must nowise be admitted that God is like creatures; because, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. ix): “A mutual likeness may be found between things of the same order, but not between a cause and that which is caused.” For, we say that a statue is like a man, but not conversely; so also a creature can be spoken of as in some sort like God; but not that God is like a creature.


(Some formatting changes introduced for clarity)


----------



## Brian Withnell

py3ak said:


> *P(1)-Q(4)-A(3)-RO(4)* — Although it may be admitted that creatures are in some sort like God, it must nowise be admitted that God is like creatures; because, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. ix): “A mutual likeness may be found between things of the same order, but not between a cause and that which is caused.” For, we say that a statue is like a man, but not conversely; so also a creature can be spoken of as in some sort like God; but not that God is like a creature.
> 
> 
> 
> (Some formatting changes introduced for clarity)
Click to expand...


So this appears to be supporting that while we are infinitesimal and different from God, that we are not totally and completely different than God.

While I find some of this discussion most beneficial, I wish it were more explanatory on position rather than statement of position. Your post seems much more explanatory rather than talking past the questions.


----------



## py3ak

I think paragraph just above the one you quoted sets the matter out pretty well:



> *P(1)-Q(4)-A(3)-RO(3)* — Likeness of creatures to God is not affirmed on account of agreement in form according to the formality of the same genus or species, _but solely according to analogy_, inasmuch as God is essential being, whereas other things are beings by participation.



The point is that certain attributes which are predicated of God, are predicated of men _analogically_. Thus for instance you can call Solomon "wise"; but at the same time you can say that only God is wise. At the same time that there is an analogy, there is an infinite difference.


----------



## OPC'n

py3ak said:


> I think paragraph just above the one you quoted sets the matter out pretty well:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *P(1)-Q(4)-A(3)-RO(3)* — Likeness of creatures to God is not affirmed on account of agreement in form according to the formality of the same genus or species, _but solely according to analogy_, inasmuch as God is essential being, whereas other things are beings by participation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that certain attributes which are predicated of God, are predicated of men _analogically_. Thus for instance you can call Solomon "wise"; but at the same time you can say that only God is wise. At the same time that there is an analogy, there is an infinite difference.
Click to expand...


Which of these definitions do you use for stating that we have God's communicable attributes in an analogical manner or do you have a different definition?

• a comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification : an analogy between the workings of nature and those of human societies | he interprets logical functions by analogy with machines.
• a correspondence or partial similarity : the syndrome is called deep dysgraphia because of its analogy to deep dyslexia.
See note at likeness .
• a thing that is comparable to something else in significant respects : works of art were seen as an analogy for works of nature.
• Logic a process of arguing from similarity in known respects to similarity in other respects.
• Linguistics a process by which new words and inflections are created on the basis of regularities in the form of existing ones.
• Biology the resemblance of function between organs that have a different evolutionary origin.


----------



## py3ak

I don't believe that Aquinas would have had any difficulty with the definition implied by Turretin (_Institutes_I.3,IV):


> The communicable attributes are not predicated of God and creatures univocally because there is not the same relation as in things simply univocal agreeing in name and definition. Nor are they predicated equivocally because there is a not a totally diverse relation, as in things merely equivocal agreeing only in name. They are predicated analogically, by analogy both of similitude and of attribution. The former is when things are called by the same name on account of a certain similarity existing between then; the latter when one name is so attributed to more than one thing that it may be said of one primarily and principally or by priority, but of the others secondarily and by posteriority on account of dependence on that first. So there attributes may be predicated of God essentially and in a manner plainly singular (i.e., infinitely and most perfectly) and so also in the abstract. In this sense, God alone is said to be good (Mt. 19:17), i.e., originally, independently, essentially; but concerning creatures only secondarily, accidentally and participatively.



Analogy is contrasted with both univocality and equivocality.


----------



## johnowen

armourbearer said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which makes Him other and incomprehensible but not wholly other and not wholly incomprehensible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So do you affirm that man can know God as He is in Himself or only as He has condescendingly revealed Himself. If the former, then you should omit the adjective "wholly" before "other." If the latter, then you are ascribing a whole otherness to God which man cannot know.
> 
> I think this sounds like a debate between Clark - Van Til
> The question is: what is the kind of difference between our knowledge of God and God's own knowledge? Qualitative or Quantitative?
> 
> Clark warns us if we think that we cannot know God as He is in Himself, then all our statements about him are relative. They cannot be absolute, and they cannot be authoritative.
> Thus, the statements of WCF, Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism should NOT be binding because it doesn't really say the truth itself. It just by chance reflect some lower level of knowledge of God, NOT as God intends it.
> 
> I don't think this is what the authors of WCF intend when they drafted these statements.
Click to expand...


----------



## py3ak

johnowen said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which makes Him other and incomprehensible but not wholly other and not wholly incomprehensible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So do you affirm that man can know God as He is in Himself or only as He has condescendingly revealed Himself. If the former, then you should omit the adjective "wholly" before "other." If the latter, then you are ascribing a whole otherness to God which man cannot know.
> 
> I think this sounds like a debate between Clark - Van Til
> The question is: what is the kind of difference between our knowledge of God and God's own knowledge? Qualitative or Quantitative?
> 
> Clark warns us if we think that we cannot know God as He is in Himself, then all our statements about him are relative. They cannot be absolute, and they cannot be authoritative.
> Thus, the statements of WCF, Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism should NOT be binding because it doesn't really say the truth itself. It just by chance reflect some lower level of knowledge of God, NOT as God intends it.
> 
> I don't think this is what the authors of WCF intend when they drafted these statements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Moderator*The Clark/Van Til debate is not on topic for this thread, and has been dealt with at considerable length on the board. Trust me when I say that bringing it in does very little to clarify any ongoing discussions. Any questions/comments about that debate should be posted on a new thread, AFTER a search is done for previous conversations on the matter.*[/Moderator]
Click to expand...


----------



## OPC'n

py3ak said:


> I don't believe that Aquinas would have had any difficulty with the definition implied by Turretin (_Institutes_I.3,IV):
> 
> 
> 
> The communicable attributes are not predicated of God and creatures univocally because there is not the same relation as in things simply univocal agreeing in name and definition. Nor are they predicated equivocally because there is a not a totally diverse relation, as in things merely equivocal agreeing only in name. They are predicated analogically, by analogy both of similitude and of attribution. The former is when things are called by the same name on account of a certain similarity existing between then; the latter when one name is so attributed to more than one thing that it may be said of one primarily and principally or by priority, but of the others secondarily and by posteriority on account of dependence on that first. So there attributes may be predicated of God essentially and in a manner plainly singular (i.e., infinitely and most perfectly) and so also in the abstract. In this sense, God alone is said to be good (Mt. 19:17), i.e., originally, independently, essentially; but concerning creatures only secondarily, accidentally and participatively.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Analogy is contrasted with both univocality and equivocality.
Click to expand...


I've tried to understand this and I do in a very small way but not unto being educated. What I get from this is that God's attributes are His alone bc they are who He is, thus He is the source and He relies on nothing for Him to be His attributes. And that the creatures have them in some abstract way (some Scripture to support this would be helpful) but only as something added to the creature accidentally by God. He *MUST* define "accidentally" differently than how we now define it. Nothing happens outside of God's control by accident.

-----Added 9/12/2009 at 07:47:35 EST-----



py3ak said:


> johnowen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So do you affirm that man can know God as He is in Himself or only as He has condescendingly revealed Himself. If the former, then you should omit the adjective "wholly" before "other." If the latter, then you are ascribing a whole otherness to God which man cannot know.
> 
> I think this sounds like a debate between Clark - Van Til
> The question is: what is the kind of difference between our knowledge of God and God's own knowledge? Qualitative or Quantitative?
> 
> Clark warns us if we think that we cannot know God as He is in Himself, then all our statements about him are relative. They cannot be absolute, and they cannot be authoritative.
> Thus, the statements of WCF, Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism should NOT be binding because it doesn't really say the truth itself. It just by chance reflect some lower level of knowledge of God, NOT as God intends it.
> 
> I don't think this is what the authors of WCF intend when they drafted these statements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moderator*The Clark/Van Til debate is not on topic for this thread, and has been dealt with at considerable length on the board. Trust me when I say that bringing it in does very little to clarify any ongoing discussions. Any questions/comments about that debate should be posted on a new thread, AFTER a search is done for previous conversations on the matter.*[/Moderator]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, our speaking of the attributes of God being or not being given to ppl isn't apart of the OP. We've gone off topic. I did start a thread for this specific subject called "Are We Being Conformed To The Image of God?". The OP is whether God is wholly other or not. I believe that He is other but not wholly other.
Click to expand...


----------



## Prufrock

Sarah, accident is a term which denotes non-essential properties of a subject. Substance (lit., "standing under") is the "essential thing" which "stands under" the superadded accidents. In God there are no accidents; only fully actualized essence.

Also, _strictly_ speaking, there is no "they" with respect to the attributes of God: there is just "it," that is, his uniform, single, most simple and indivisible essence. The attributes are not "things" which can be given; they are just the essence considered under different aspects.


----------



## OPC'n

Prufrock said:


> Sarah, accident is a term which denotes non-essential properties of a subject. Substance (lit., "standing under") is the "essential thing" which "stands under" the superadded accidents. In God there are no accidents; only fully actualized essence.
> 
> Also, _strictly_ speaking, there is no "they" with respect to the attributes of God: there is just "it," that is, his uniform, single, most simple and indivisible essence. The attributes are not "things" which can be given; they are just the essence considered under different aspects.



Of course His attributes are one since He is one, but for the sake of us mere humans I'm going to use the plural form. So you believe that in some mystical or abstract way we "have" His communicable attributes but that it's not essential to who we are or will be bc we only "participate" in them? I'm I getting that right?


----------



## Prufrock

Sarah, I will now bow out of this discussion, lest I become too much more of a broken record. We do not speak of mysticism in any way. Rather, the attributes are analogously reflected in us as accidents, attributed to us by that (analogous) similitude based upon the like effects produced. I'm sure Mr. Sproul would affirm this as well, as it is basic Reformed teaching.

Have a blessed Sabbath.


----------



## OPC'n

Prufrock said:


> Sarah, I will now bow out of this discussion, lest I become too much more of a broken record. We do not speak of mysticism in any way. Rather, the attributes are analogously reflected in us as accidents, attributed to us by that (analogous) similitude based upon the like effects produced. I'm sure Mr. Sproul would affirm this as well, as it is basic Reformed teaching.
> 
> Have a blessed Sabbath.



Umm, yes, actually you did sound like a broken record but only in that you continued to give me quotes and use sentences that I don't believe come from your own thought process on this subject.... just like the one above... bc the sentences contain a language structure and words that are foreign to your normal speech pattern and are completely "Turretinian" sounding. I think if you have really thought this through and thoroughly understand it, you would be able to use today's language to not only interpret what Turretin states but also explain this doctrine (to which you say all reformers hold yet it's *completely* new to me) in a meaningful way. We are going around in circles bc you've explained nothing only quoted Turretin and whoever *AND* have given little to no Scriptural support although I did ask for some. Now I'm not saying this to be mean, I'm just trying to make a point that you have not made your case or at least explained your case in any educative manner. In any case, this has little to do with the OP. You have a good Sabbath too!


----------



## Prufrock

I'm sorry I was not more helpful; but, for the record, the above was not a quote of anything: that was my sincere attempt at explaining as clearly as possible in my own speech patterns; however, I suppose that I am not surprised if, when attempting to explain something, my thought patterns tend to bear resemblance to those from whom I have learned. Most of my interaction here is probably done in a more "vocal," conversational style; at times, I suppose I slip into a written style. If you would, indeed, still like to have a discussion of the Reformed understanding of analogy and communication sometime in the next week, I'd be more than glad to participate in a new thread.

Either way, lest this thread interfere with anyone's Sabbath tomorrow, *I am going to shut this one down until after Sunday.*


----------



## py3ak

OPC'n said:


> I've tried to understand this and I do in a very small way but not unto being educated. What I get from this is that God's attributes are His alone bc they are who He is, thus He is the source and He relies on nothing for Him to be His attributes. And that the creatures have them in some abstract way (some Scripture to support this would be helpful) but only as something added to the creature accidentally by God. He *MUST* define "accidentally" differently than how we now define it. Nothing happens outside of God's control by accident.



Yes, you are right that Turretin is using "accidentally" in a different way. If I can expand on Paul's excellently concise clarification, he doesn't mean something that happens by chance, but is contrasting something that is accidental with something that is essential. For instance, if a man goes bald, he is still a man, because hair is _accidental_ to humanity; but if he were somehow deprived of his soul he would cease to be human, because it is of the essence of man to have a reasonable soul.

I'm not sure what you mean by creatures having God's attributes in some abstract way, so I'm not sure I can produce Scripture to support that point. Sticking with an example that's already been used, if Solomon is given wisdom by God, how can we say that God only is wise? I think the answer has to be that Solomon's wisdom isn't the same as God's, but is called wisdom because it bears some resemblance on a human level to what we call God's wisdom (which is God Himself being wise, because He is His attributes).


----------



## MW

discipulo said:


> Do you suggest taking Barth by his denial of Natural Revelation, not taking
> 
> Romans 1:18-21 seriously?



Certainly I would find fault with Barth on natural revelation, but I would find fault with his whole conception of revelation. He not only said God is wholly other, but so wholly other as to negate the reality of a revelation that is cognitive. This is the basic problem with neo-orthodoxy.


----------



## MW

Brian Withnell said:


> If not, then please define, simply and completely, what is meant by "true". (I have always through of "true" meaning in concert with the nature and character of God; the opposite of false; what is, and not what is not.)



Truth is that which is according to fact. As reformed believers we receive our facts from God. They do not depend on the competency of our minds to validate them, but on the trustworthiness of God in revealing them. It is enough to know that God has spoken and God never lies. We do not need to know God as He is in Himself, nor could we survive it.

Let's use an illustration -- a heart surgeon and his patient. The surgeon has condescended to explain things in non-specialist terms. The patient knows what is going to happen to him insofar as the surgeon has explained it, but he does not know with the surgeon's specialist understanding.


----------



## dr_parsley

armourbearer said:


> discipulo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you suggest taking Barth by his denial of Natural Revelation, not taking
> 
> Romans 1:18-21 seriously?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly I would find fault with Barth on natural revelation, but I would find fault with his whole conception of revelation. He not only said God is wholly other, but so wholly other as to negate the reality of a revelation that is cognitive. This is the basic problem with neo-orthodoxy.
Click to expand...


At the risk of merging two threads, how can revelation be at the same time cognitive and non-propositional? I'm open to education, but at the moment I can only guess that to hold to that position you must have a definition of one or both of those things that is rather limited.


----------



## MW

dr_parsley said:


> At the risk of merging two threads, how can revelation be at the same time cognitive and non-propositional? I'm open to education, but at the moment I can only guess that to hold to that position you must have a definition of one or both of those things that is rather limited.



Think about the saying, "I don't know what the future holds, but I know who holds the future." We can conceive of eternity or infinity as a thought; but we know more than that when we know the God who is eternal and infinite.


----------



## dr_parsley

armourbearer said:


> dr_parsley said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the risk of merging two threads, how can revelation be at the same time cognitive and non-propositional? I'm open to education, but at the moment I can only guess that to hold to that position you must have a definition of one or both of those things that is rather limited.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think about the saying, "I don't know what the future holds, but I know who holds the future." We can conceive of eternity or infinity as a thought; but we know more than that when we know the God who is eternal and infinite.
Click to expand...


Hmm. I think I see what you're driving at. I was first trained as a Number Theorist, so my mind sees the word 'proposition' a bit differently to the standard dictionary definition! I would see "infinity" as a proposition itself and truths about infinity as proveable propositions. According to Gödel's theorem there are always unproveable true propositions and (not according to Gödel) amongst them are some of those that God proves in our hearts.


----------



## discipulo

I’ve been reading this thread with great interest, in spite of feeling the waters deeper than my grasp.

So I was trying to read a bit more to understand and I came across a very interesting mention.

Richard Muller’s PRRD, vol 3, the Divine Essence and Atributes, page 134

_Many of the Orthodox Theologians, perhaps most notably Mastricht and Brakel, insist on relating each doctrinal point to the Christian life:
Discussions on the Divine Essence, Simplicity, Eternity, Immutability, and so forth, *are not merely abstract doctrinal expositions*, but each offers an approach for piety to the God of Salvation_

I think it is a wise direction to keep in mind, as God’s Revelation is centred on Redemption and given throughout Redemptive History. 

His condescension and grace towards His human creatures is relational and covenantal.


----------



## OPC'n

armourbearer said:


> discipulo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you suggest taking Barth by his denial of Natural Revelation, not taking
> 
> Romans 1:18-21 seriously?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly I would find fault with Barth on natural revelation, but I would find fault with his whole conception of revelation. He not only said God is wholly other, but so wholly other as to negate the reality of a revelation that is cognitive. This is the basic problem with neo-orthodoxy.
Click to expand...


Did you listen to Sproul's teaching on this? This is what I've been trying to tell you. To say that God is wholly other "is to negate the reality of a revelation that is cognitive". God would have been unable to tell us anything about Himself in a human cognitive manner. "So wholly other" is no different than "wholly other". If something is wholly, then it is complete. Placing the word "so" in front of it doesn't make it more whole. That is why the terms "wholly other" and "other" are used.....there is a difference between the two but no difference between "so wholly other" and "wholly other". Barth was the one who came up with the doctrine of "wholly other" and gave to it the definition that you give to "so wholly other".... possibly a term that you made up to replace "wholly other"? In the end:

Your terms: "so wholly other" and "wholly other" = the same thing which "is to negate the reality of a revelation that is cognitive" to mankind.

Sproul's terms: "wholly other" = "is to negate the reality of a revelation that is cognitive" to mankind and "other"= God being able to tell us *something *about Himself so that the revelation He has given to us is cognitive to mankind. 

There's obviously more to this in Sproul's sermon but I'm wondering if you have listened to it yet?


----------



## MW

OPC'n said:


> There's obviously more to this in Sproul's sermon but I'm wondering if you have listened to it yet?



Yes, I had some time yesterday to listen. Sproul certainly takes Barth to task for teaching God is wholly other. But in the process he affirms that God's being is "above and beyond" us. In the final analysis, it is not Barth's teaching of the wholly other which is criticised, but Barth's denial of the analogy of being. In other words, Barth so stresses God's transcendence as to deny an essential component of His immanence; and it is the denial of this component which makes cognitive revelation impossible.

My response is simply this -- God is so wholly other and such true being as to be able to fill all things and communicate with all being. While God is immense, and beyond the limits of time, space, and motion, He is also presence, and fills the limits of time, space, and motion.


----------



## MW

discipulo said:


> Richard Muller’s PRRD, vol 3, the Divine Essence and Atributes, page 134
> 
> _Many of the Orthodox Theologians, perhaps most notably Mastricht and Brakel, insist on relating each doctrinal point to the Christian life:
> Discussions on the Divine Essence, Simplicity, Eternity, Immutability, and so forth, *are not merely abstract doctrinal expositions*, but each offers an approach for piety to the God of Salvation_



Excellent reference. Divinity is the science of living to God blessedly.


----------



## DMcFadden

I think that the discussion has gotten a bit off track and hung up on the reason for Sproul protesting the "totaliter aliter" notion. His point is not to deny the otherness of God or to critique the confession. Rather, he is pointing to the phrase used as a philosophical justification given by "neo-orthodox" theologians for objecting to affirmations of the objectivity of revelation and to propositional expressions of truth. In this sense, he is operating in the same venue as Carl F.H. Henry who made similar comments: 



> Kierkegaard’s driving antirationalism even requires that God be “wholly other” and “absolutely unlike” man (Philosophical Fragments, p. 37). Since the total otherness of God in Kierkegaard’s view is deliberately intended to affirm God’s complete unlikeness to any qualities predictable of humanity, he seems to disallow every scriptural affirmation about God including the declaration that God is our Father. The outcome of such theological negation can only be not simply the total otherness of God but his complete unknowability.
> 
> Voicing the possibility that man’s nature does involve a religious a priori (Kierkegaard discarded this possibility), Rudolf Otto referred spiritual experience not to a rational a priori, but to irrational intuition. Man has a nonrational capacity, says Otto, for intuitively feeling the presence of a transcendent, mysterious, “wholly other” reality: a mysterium tremendum et fascinosum (cf. Das Heilige). Otto’s view could not resist the rising tide of dialectical and existential theology that inundated Europe after World War I because like it he also minimized the rational aspects of the imago Dei in man and basically identified religious experience as mystery. Commenting on Otto’s premise that the religious reality is thus “wholly other,” Macintosh observes that the Divine may therefore be defined “only in negative terms, and it tends to become an object of superstitious dread, divested of all ideal spiritual qualities” (The Problem of Religious Knowledge, p. 302).
> 
> Henry, C. F. H. (1999). *God, revelation, and authority*. Originally published: Waco, Tex. : Word Books, c1976-c1983. (5:364). Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books.
> 
> Even neo-Protestantism, by its warped emphasis on universal and/or special revelation, vulnerably compressed discussion of transcendent deity; its dialectical and existential theology promulgated a “wholly Other” said to be known in inner volitional response and not in revealed and sharable propositional truths. Divine disclosure, it was alleged, conveys no objectively valid information about God’s nature and operations, but functions, rather, to arouse spiritual response and to evoke a right attitude of obedience. The suppression of rational revelational content fostered noncognitive relationships between man and the transcendent that could grant only symbolic value to the affirmations of orthodox theism.
> 
> Henry, C. F. H. (1999). *God, revelation, and authority*. Originally published: Waco, Tex. : Word Books, c1976-c1983. (6:40). Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books.



As used by the likes of the existential theologians, calling God "totally other" was their cipher for saying that we can have no bridge to God other than a post-Kantian, existential, apprehension of the noumenal. All Sproul is saying is that this is a misrepresentation of Christian teaching. Frankly, I'm with R.C. Sproul and most evangelical critics of 20th century theologians. You can't believe in inerrancy and follow the road of Barth and gang.

Sproul describes himself in his own words:



> It has become fashionable in our day to speak of God as being “wholly other.” This phrase was coined to safeguard the transcendence of God against all forms of pantheism that seek to identify God with or contain him within the universe. If taken literally, however, the term “wholly other” would be fatal to Christianity. If there is no sense in which God and man are similar, if there is no analogy of being between God and man, then there is no common basis for communication between us. Utterly dissimilar beings have no way of discourse between them.
> Sproul, R. (2000, c1997). *Grace unknown : The heart of reformed theology* (34). Grand Rapids: Baker Books.


----------



## MW

DMcFadden said:


> Sproul describes himself in his own words:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has become fashionable in our day to speak of God as being “wholly other.” This phrase was coined to safeguard the transcendence of God against all forms of pantheism that seek to identify God with or contain him within the universe. If taken literally, however, the term “wholly other” would be fatal to Christianity. If there is no sense in which God and man are similar, if there is no analogy of being between God and man, then there is no common basis for communication between us. Utterly dissimilar beings have no way of discourse between them.
> Sproul, R. (2000, c1997). *Grace unknown : The heart of reformed theology* (34). Grand Rapids: Baker Books.
Click to expand...


The problem with denying the "wholly other" and affirming a "common basis for communication" in the very order of being is that it identifies the "being" of God with the "becoming" of this world. At the point at which Sproul calls the "analogy of being" a "common basis" he has actually repudiated the "analogy of being" and substituted it with a "commonality of being." As stated in my first post, the answer is to be found in the condescending nature of God's revelation -- this is what makes communication a reality, and such a reality as ensures God is the revealer and man is the receiver.


----------



## MW

dr_parsley said:


> Hmm. I think I see what you're driving at. I was first trained as a Number Theorist, so my mind sees the word 'proposition' a bit differently to the standard dictionary definition! I would see "infinity" as a proposition itself and truths about infinity as proveable propositions. According to Gödel's theorem there are always unproveable true propositions and (not according to Gödel) amongst them are some of those that God proves in our hearts.



OK. So in this scheme would the "unknown" be like a dark hole in the universe rather than that which exceeds the limits of the universe?

I think this idea would fall to the ground after a process of explaining propositions brought us to the conclusion that man reasons in a circle.


----------



## py3ak

armourbearer said:


> At the point at which Sproul calls the "analogy of being" a "common basis" he has actually repudiated the "analogy of being" and substituted it with a "commonality of being."



Do you have any recommendations for reading on the analogy of being?


----------



## DMcFadden

Muller has an interesting definition in his dictionary that throws some light on the discussion, including why a rationalististic Sproul would become so exercised with Barth.



> analogia entis: the analogy of being; specifically, the assumption of an analogia (q.v.), or likeness, between finite and infinite being which lies at the basis of the a posteriori (q.v.) proofs of the existence of God and at the heart of the discussion of attributa divina (q.v.). The analogia entis is associated with the Thomist, as distinct from Scotist and nominalist, school in medieval and subsequent theology and philosophy. Since the proofs of God’s existence play only a minor role in the Protestant scholastic systems and, when stated, are usually expressed informally and seldom at any length, the analogia entis receives little emphasis among the Protestant scholastics. Beyond this, the Protestant scholastic statement of fundamental principles (principia theologiae, q.v.), critical of the pure Thomistic approach of the Middle Ages and quite sensitive to the separation of reason and revelation argued by Scotism, recognizes the inability of theology to rest its arguments on a principle of analogy between Creator and creature and, instead, tends to argue the use of ideas and terms on the basis of scriptural revelation. This tendency coheres with the Protestant scholastic view of the use of philosophy (See usus philosophiae).
> 
> Muller, R. A. (1985). *Dictionary of Latin and Greek theological terms : Drawn principally from Protestant scholastic theology.* Includes index. (32). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House.


----------



## Brian Withnell

armourbearer said:


> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is the truthfulness of a glorified saint totally and completely different from truth which is God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. It does not make the saints liars because the truth they believe is that which is condescendingly revealed by God. It contains all the qualities of truth that creaturely limitation requires.
Click to expand...


1) I would think that if something is true (objectively true) then it is a reflection of God (who is truth itself). So if a creature is truthful, then to the extent of the creatures truthfulness, the creature is reflecting the character of God (there is no truth outside God). Do you agree?

2) In your statement "is condescendingly revealed by God" has, from my argument, no relevance to the issue ... if it is true condescendingly revealed, it is still true absolutely (otherwise even what is revealed is not infallible, and the Bible itself is not truly true). If a person quotes the scripture, they are speaking the Word of God ... they are speaking truth, regardless of source, and so are in that quotation speaking in concert with what God has already said. They reflect the truth of God in doing so, imperfectly, but still reflective (and with the condescension of God in revealing that truth in the first place). If man does speak truth ... then does it really and truly reflect God?

3) Without use of terms of art (please no undefined jargon) what does "in our image and in our likeness" (Gen 1) mean if we are "wholly other" in a real sense (please, if you insist on using "analogy of being" or other jargon, explain the terms in plain English as to what it does and does not mean).

I would like to understand what you are trying to say ... but I really need more than a two sentence reply or quotes from books and tomes that I do not own. I'm looking for a clear statement in modern English that is complete in itself without the use of jargon -- which I think would communicate more quickly in any case.

I know I'm asking a lot, but I think it would go a long way toward not only my understanding what you mean, but everyone else understanding as well.


----------



## dr_parsley

Maybe I'm a simple man, but God is not wholly other if Jesus Christ is wholly God. That is wholly the point. 

When we reach the point of 'wholly other' it is one of those places where philosophy needs to admit its inadequacy and revelation take over because we have a God who became manifest in the flesh. Going the other way, we know we can "become partakers of the divine nature" and "we shall be like him". It seems clear that, despite philosophy, God can do this thing.

Conclusion: God is not bound by the simplistic logic that governs philosophy.


----------



## MW

Brian Withnell said:


> 1) I would think that if something is true (objectively true) then it is a reflection of God (who is truth itself). So if a creature is truthful, then to the extent of the creatures truthfulness, the creature is reflecting the character of God (there is no truth outside God). Do you agree?



Certainly.



Brian Withnell said:


> 2) In your statement "is condescendingly revealed by God" has, from my argument, no relevance to the issue ... if it is true condescendingly revealed, it is still true absolutely (otherwise even what is revealed is not infallible, and the Bible itself is not truly true). If a person quotes the scripture, they are speaking the Word of God ... they are speaking truth, regardless of source, and so are in that quotation speaking in concert with what God has already said. They reflect the truth of God in doing so, imperfectly, but still reflective (and with the condescension of God in revealing that truth in the first place). If man does speak truth ... then does it really and truly reflect God?



Yes, it really and truly reflects God "as He has revealed Himself." Where you say, "it is still true absolutely," I would need to know what is meant by "absolutely." Does it mean the quality of truth is absolute? No doubt it is. But if it means man now knows absolutely, I cannot concur, for all our knowledge is based on God's self-revelation and is therefore relational.



Brian Withnell said:


> 3) Without use of terms of art (please no undefined jargon) what does "in our image and in our likeness" (Gen 1) mean if we are "wholly other" in a real sense (please, if you insist on using "analogy of being" or other jargon, explain the terms in plain English as to what it does and does not mean).



An essentially different order of being might reflect the qualities of its Maker. The heavens declare the glory of God. It only needs to be kept in mind that the creature possesses created qualities. Hence man exhibits the qualities of knowledge, righteousness, and holiness, but does so according to his created capacity.



Brian Withnell said:


> I would like to understand what you are trying to say ... but I really need more than a two sentence reply or quotes from books and tomes that I do not own. I'm looking for a clear statement in modern English that is complete in itself without the use of jargon -- which I think would communicate more quickly in any case.



You are a hard taskmaster. 

God is immense. His immensity in relation to space is called infinitude; in relation to time, eternity; in relation to motion, unchangeability. Whatever kind of being man is, he is bound within the limits of space, time, and motion. God, however, both fills all space, time, and motion (immanence), and exceeds the limits of these (transcendence). God is wholly unlike man. When man defines God he does so by excluding all the imperfections of creaturehood from his definition. Hence man defines God more in terms of what God is not rather than what He is. Man does not even know what space, time, and motion is, so he must have no ability to understand what it means to exceed the limits of these. Man can only know anything about God because God is pleased to reveal Himself to man in a manner which can be grasped by human capacity. What man knows is the accommodated truth of God, not the truth of God as He is in Himself.

Please understand that this is not a treatise on the subject; so any critique should bear in mind the summary nature of the statement and the "limitations of space."


----------



## MW

dr_parsley said:


> Maybe I'm a simple man, but God is not wholly other if Jesus Christ is wholly God. That is wholly the point.



Cur Deus homo?


----------



## dr_parsley

armourbearer said:


> dr_parsley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe I'm a simple man, but God is not wholly other if Jesus Christ is wholly God. That is wholly the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cur Deus homo?
Click to expand...


Is est mysterium.


----------



## MW

py3ak said:


> Do you have any recommendations for reading on the analogy of being?



Not one individual source; but a good start would be Van Til's essay on Nature and Scripture in "The Infallible Word." Pp. 279-285 deal with Aquinas and analogy of being.


----------



## Brian Withnell

armourbearer said:


> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) I would think that if something is true (objectively true) then it is a reflection of God (who is truth itself). So if a creature is truthful, then to the extent of the creatures truthfulness, the creature is reflecting the character of God (there is no truth outside God). Do you agree?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly.
Click to expand...

Thank you.



armourbearer said:


> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2) In your statement "is condescendingly revealed by God" has, from my argument, no relevance to the issue ... if it is true condescendingly revealed, it is still true absolutely (otherwise even what is revealed is not infallible, and the Bible itself is not truly true). If a person quotes the scripture, they are speaking the Word of God ... they are speaking truth, regardless of source, and so are in that quotation speaking in concert with what God has already said. They reflect the truth of God in doing so, imperfectly, but still reflective (and with the condescension of God in revealing that truth in the first place). If man does speak truth ... then does it really and truly reflect God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it really and truly reflects God "as He has revealed Himself." Where you say, "it is still true absolutely," I would need to know what is meant by "absolutely." Does it mean the quality of truth is absolute? No doubt it is. But if it means man now knows absolutely, I cannot concur, for all our knowledge is based on God's self-revelation and is therefore relational.
Click to expand...


But does not God bind himself, because it is impossible for God to lie, so therefore whatever God has revealed, condescendingly, God is bound by it for he himself is truth? At the point of God's speaking to man, is not his truth bound forever in revelation? We know absolutely -- in the sense of it is axiomatic (a priori) that God is in truth true. Unless we are "in violent agreement" because of the way the semantics are changing here ... I see you might be saying that what we know is absolute truth is not knowledge that we ourselves can fathom for ourselves ... that I agree 100% upon and always have.



armourbearer said:


> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3) Without use of terms of art (please no undefined jargon) what does "in our image and in our likeness" (Gen 1) mean if we are "wholly other" in a real sense (please, if you insist on using "analogy of being" or other jargon, explain the terms in plain English as to what it does and does not mean).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An essentially different order of being might reflect the qualities of its Maker. The heavens declare the glory of God. It only needs to be kept in mind that the creature possesses created qualities. Hence man exhibits the qualities of knowledge, righteousness, and holiness, but does so according to his created capacity.
Click to expand...


Okay, from what I can see you have stated very clearly the differences, but what similitude exists ("in our image" and "in our likeness" seem totally meaningless unless there is *some* kind of similitude.) Of course we are created beings, and God is creator (the essence is different, if for no other reason than he is necessarily self-existent and we are necessarily not self-existent.) That does not mean there is no similarity or the "image" would seem not only superfluous, but misleading and false. What is the similitude?



armourbearer said:


> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to understand what you are trying to say ... but I really need more than a two sentence reply or quotes from books and tomes that I do not own. I'm looking for a clear statement in modern English that is complete in itself without the use of jargon -- which I think would communicate more quickly in any case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a hard taskmaster.
Click to expand...

Thank you! You are a gracious teacher to take up the task (but I think "pastor" means you have no choice but to follow the call of Christ  ).




armourbearer said:


> God is immense. His immensity in relation to space is called infinitude; in relation to time, eternity; in relation to motion, unchangeability. Whatever kind of being man is, he is bound within the limits of space, time, and motion. God, however, both fills all space, time, and motion (immanence), and exceeds the limits of these (transcendence). God is wholly unlike man. When man defines God he does so by excluding all the imperfections of creaturehood from his definition. Hence man defines God more in terms of what God is not rather than what He is. Man does not even know what space, time, and motion is, so he must have no ability to understand what it means to exceed the limits of these. Man can only know anything about God because God is pleased to reveal Himself to man in a manner which can be grasped by human capacity. What man knows is the accommodated truth of God, not the truth of God as He is in Himself.
> 
> Please understand that this is not a treatise on the subject; so any critique should bear in mind the summary nature of the statement and the "limitations of space."



I think that my objection is strictly with "wholly other". I fully agree with *everything* else in the paragraph above ... except that term. I would think that by God's condescension it is possible for God to have made man in a way that there is a common framework (not substance) by which God has revealed his immanence through to man in that man can sense that which God reveals. This is not to say that a man (or Man) can reach this on his own -- it still would mean that God would have to reveal, even as God has revealed and so the "cat is out of the bag" so to speak.

If God is immanent, then it would seem man could at least perceive what God has revealed in his immanence. (There is a possibility that God could even impart to man a dependent transcendance. Part of us that can exist outside this created frame ... though I see philosophical chicken and the egg problems with that--if a created being can be existent outside of the creation framework, then by being a creation, does that ipso facto, extend the creation framework? Not going there ... no way to answer it apart from philosophy, and taking about souls of men in heaven and the eternal state of the saints is beyond angels dancing on the head of a pin!)

It would seem the only difference we have is "wholly other" as a term, and I'm still not sure if I understand your use of that term. Does that make any sense?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any recommendations for reading on the analogy of being?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not one individual source; but a good start would be Van Til's essay on Nature and Scripture in "The Infallible Word." Pp. 279-285 deal with Aquinas and analogy of being.
Click to expand...


I read that book a few months ago and had to answer some questions that summarized the treatment of Van Til on Natural Revelation. I hope this proves useful:



> Nature and Scripture
> 
> How is natural theology necessary?
> 
> Scripture does not claim to speak to man in any other way than in conjunction with nature. God's revelation of Himself in nature combined with His revelation of Himself in Scripture form God's one grand schem of covenant relationship of Himself with man. The two forms presuppose and complement one another.
> 
> It was necessary in the garden as the lower act of obedience learned from avoiding the tree of knowledge of good and evil man might learn the higher things of obedience to God. The natural appeared in the regularity of nature.
> After the fall, the natural appears under to curse of God and not merely regular. God's curse on nature is revealed along with regularity. The natural reveals an unalleviated picture of folly and ruin and speaks to the need for a Redeemer.
> 
> To the believer the natural or regular with all its complexity always appears as the playground for the process of differentiation which leads ever onward to the fullness of the glory of God.
> 
> What is the authority of natural revelation?
> 
> The same God who reveals Himself in Scripture is the God who reveals Himself in nature. They are of the same authority even if the former is superior in clarity than the latter. We are analogues to God and our respect for revelation in both spheres must be maintained and it is only when we refuse to act as creatures that we contrast authority between natural and special revelation. What comes to man by his rational and moral nature (created in God's image) is no less objective than what comes to him through the created order as all is in Covenant relationship to God. All created activity is inherently revelational of the nature and will of God.
> 
> What is the sufficiency of natural revelation?
> 
> It is sufficient to leave men without excuse for their sin and denying the God they know they are created to worship but insufficient at revealing the grace of God in salvation. Natural revelation was never meant to function by itself (as above) but it was historically sufficient as it renders without excuse. God's revelation in nature is sufficient in history to differentiate between those who who would and who would not serve God.
> 
> What is meant by the perspicuity of natural revelation?
> 
> God's revelation in nature was always meant to serve alongside His special revelation. God is a revealing God and the perspicuity of nature is bound up in the fact that He voluntarily reveals. Both natural and special revelation would be impossible if God remained incomprehensible as He is in Himself (archetypal theology). Man cannot penetrate God as He is Himself - he cannot comprehend God. But created man may see clearly what is revealed clearly even if he does not see exhaustively. Man need not have exhaustive knowledge in order to know truly and certainly.
> 
> God's thoughts about Himself are self-contained but man is an analogue who thinks in covenant relation to the One who created him. Thus man's interpretation of nature follows what is fully interpreted by God. Man thinks God's thoughts after him - not comprehensively but analogically.
> The Psalmist doesn't declare that the heavens possibly or probably declare the glory of God. Paul does not say that the wrath of God is probably revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men. Scripture takes the clarity of God's revelation for granted at every stage of human history. The God who speaks in Scripture cannot refer to anything that is not already authoratively revelational of Himself for the evidence of His own existence. Everything exists that is His creation.
> 
> It is no easier for sinners to accept God in nature than it is for them to accept Him in Scripture. The two are inseparable in their clarity. We need the Holy Spirit to understand both. Man must be a Christian to study nature in a proper frame of mind.
> 
> How does Greek natural theology and the natural theology of Kant result in denying any rationality higher than itself?
> 
> Neither allow analogical reasoning to understand the world. They start from nature and try to argue for a god who must be finite in nature. It starts with a "mute" universe that has no revelation and makes it revelational only with respect to the autonomous mind of man. No distinction is made between Creator and creature.
> 
> Kant's great contribution to philosophy consisted in stressing the activity of the experiencing subject. It is this point to which the idea of a Copernican revolution is usually applied. Kant argued that since it is the thinking subject that itself contributes the categories of universality and necessity, we must not think of these as covering any reality that exists or may exist wholly independent of the human mind. The validity of universals is to be taken as frankly due to a motion and a vote; it is conventional and nothing more.
> Plato and Aristotle, as well as Kant, assumed the autonomy of man. On such a basis man may reason univocally (have the same mind as God) and reach a God who is just an extension of the creature or he may reason equivocally and reach a God who has no contact with him at all. Man is left with either God being part of nature (pantheism) or being so transcendent that He cannot get into nature (deism).
> 
> We're now left with a world where the scientist supposedly interacts with the physical world and can learn about the world apart from any reference to God and "ministers" who speak about God's revelation that has no reference to history and interaction with the world. Man is fractured intellectually where reason deals with things of the world and faith deals with things that cannot affect reason or the world.
> 
> The very idea of Kant's Copernican revolution was that the autonomous mind itself must assume the responsibility for making all factual differentiation and logical validation. To such a mind the God of Christianity cannot speak. Such a mind will hear no voice but its own.
> 
> 1 Stonehouse and Woolley, The Infallible Word, New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 1967, p 263.
> 2 Ibid, p 267.
> 3 Ibid, p 271.
> 4 Ibid, p 272.
> 5 Ibid, p 274
> 6 Ibid, p 275.
> 7 Ibid, p 276.
> 8 Ibid, p 278.
> 9 Ibid, p 278.
> 10 Ibid, p 279.
> 11 Ibid, p 296.
> 12 Ibid, p 297.
> 13 Ibid, p 298.


----------



## MW

Brian Withnell said:


> But does not God bind himself, because it is impossible for God to lie, so therefore whatever God has revealed, condescendingly, God is bound by it for he himself is truth? At the point of God's speaking to man, is not his truth bound forever in revelation? We know absolutely -- in the sense of it is axiomatic (a priori) that God is in truth true. Unless we are "in violent agreement" because of the way the semantics are changing here ... I see you might be saying that what we know is absolute truth is not knowledge that we ourselves can fathom for ourselves ... that I agree 100% upon and always have.



Yes, certainly God's truth accommodated to human capacity is a truth to which He has bound Himself -- blessed assurance! As long as the terms, "condescended," "accommodated" are properly accounted for then I don't think there is any problem with saying God is bound to it, whatever words one chooses to use.



Brian Withnell said:


> Okay, from what I can see you have stated very clearly the differences, but what similitude exists ("in our image" and "in our likeness" seem totally meaningless unless there is *some* kind of similitude.) Of course we are created beings, and God is creator (the essence is different, if for no other reason than he is necessarily self-existent and we are necessarily not self-existent.) That does not mean there is no similarity or the "image" would seem not only superfluous, but misleading and false. What is the similitude?



Does the similitude have to be ontological in order to pay full respect to the idea of similitude? Ps. 115:8 says of idols, "They that make them are like unto them; so is every one that trusteth in them." Certainly there is no ontic connection between an idol and its maker. The likeness is more in the realm of senselessness, which is a moral consideration.



Brian Withnell said:


> I would think that by God's condescension it is possible for God to have made man in a way that there is a common framework (not substance) by which God has revealed his immanence through to man in that man can sense that which God reveals.



Yes, but you are accrediting the "commonality" to condescension. If one ascribes "otherness" to God when He condescends to man, then it would seem necessary to ascribe "entire otherness" in a non-condescending existence.

This brings me back to where I started on this thread. It is at the point of God's condescending revelation that neo-orthodoxy must be confronted, not in a denial that He is wholly other.


----------



## Brian Withnell

The thing I always have a problem with is "wholly" in the context.

For instance. In the sense that God is omnipresent, he is present everywhere at all times (absolute omnipresence). My meager presences does not produce an occlusion of the presence of God, so in the sense that God is everywhere, and he causes me to be somewhere at particular points in time, then there is an intersection of my presence with his presence. I do not produce a small part of the universe in which God does not exist even during the small part of the time I am here. ("...for in Him we live and move and exist..."). It would seem that "wholly" other would preclude that statement, as there could be no common point between our existence.

I guess what I'm saying is that "wholly other" appears to deny anything in common, even if it is through the condescension of God.


----------



## MW

Brian Withnell said:


> It would seem that "wholly" other would preclude that statement, as there could be no common point between our existence.



But is there a common point between your "existence?" You may very well have your being in Him, but He doesn't have His being in you. The space you occupy is not occupied by Him. He creates, fills and transcends the space you occupy. So there is no sense in which you have anything in common with God. All that you have in a way of communion is by a gracious condescension on God's part; there is nothing "necessary" or "natural" about what you share. Psalm 113:5, 6, "Who is like unto the Lord our God, who dwelleth on high, Who humbleth himself to behold the things that are in heaven, and in the earth!"


----------



## Brian Withnell

armourbearer said:


> But is there a common point between your "existence?" You may very well have your being in Him, but He doesn't have His being in you.



Agreed, if what you mean is that his being is not contained by me.



armourbearer said:


> The space you occupy is not occupied by Him. He creates, fills and transcends the space you occupy.



I would think this does not make sense ... if God fills the space I occupy, then he is there. I am also there. If the first sentence is true, would that not mean that wherever I am, he is not? Would not his not occupying the space that I occupy mean that for the fleeting moment I occupy a particular place in the universe (fleeting as it is) that if God does not occupy it, that he is not present there? At a particular point in time, I will be in a particular place ... even if that place is ever changing ... to say that God is not in that same place would seem to deny the imminence of God, or at least his omnipresence. Either God is here or he is not here.

I'm trying to reconcile his not being present where I am (which would be a point of commonality ... location) to his omnipresence. How do you do that (for even if he is here through condescension he would in fact be here, which would then mean the commonality is present and real, even if condescendingly so).

As an aside, I would almost put it the opposite way around though in a sense (that I exist and occupy a space through condescension, rather than he condescends to be imminent I'm not sure he could be anything other than omnipresent); if he did not keep my existence, I would not exist.

But even put that way, I do occupy a part of what he fills, even if by condescension. So it would seem that by condescension, I am not totally "other" in that I have existence and God also exists. My existence is not a necessary existence, but my existence is. God exists necessarily (it is his name in the sense that he says "I am" to Moses). And while other than just existing, there is nothing else about existence between us, that we both exist is true? It would seem that if God is wholly other, and that I exist, then he could not (and that is obviously not true). So either I don't exist, or both I exist and he exists. It may be by condescension that I exist, but I am here. Or at least was.


----------



## MW

Brian Withnell said:


> I would think this does not make sense ... if God fills the space I occupy, then he is there.



But in this "natural" sense, He is there where the tree grows also. I thought we were talking about ontological commonality. As "Being," God does not occupy the space you occupy because He creates, fills, and transcends it.



Brian Withnell said:


> How do you do that (for even if he is here through condescension he would in fact be here, which would then mean the commonality is present and real, even if condescendingly so).



But if you allow for condescension you are negating that it is God as He is in Himself. The discussion of "wholly other" only concerns God as He is in Himself.



Brian Withnell said:


> God exists necessarily (it is his name in the sense that he says "I am" to Moses). And while other than just existing, there is nothing else about existence between us, that we both exist is true?



But surely you can see an equivocation in the word "existence" at this point. When God says "I AM" it means He IS existence. Infinite, eternal and unchangeable Being is true existence. On the other hand, we merely exist, as one among many other existences. God does not exist in this sense.


----------



## Michael Doyle

I thank you Rev Winzer, Ruben, Paul and the likes for patiently working this out. It is difficult for the unlearned to begin to make sense of it but it is starting to come together.

I will listen to Sproul today but really am satisfied with the exposition of these truths I have witnessed here.


----------



## OPC'n

Michael Doyle said:


> I thank you Rev Winzer, Ruben, Paul and the likes for patiently working this out. It is difficult for the unlearned to begin to make sense of it but it is starting to come together.
> 
> I will listen to Sproul today but really am satisfied with the exposition of these truths I have witnessed here.



Please listen to Sproul....


----------



## py3ak

After listening to Sproul, it seemed unlikely that he would present anything to change one's mind - certainly the lecture contained nothing remarkable.


----------



## Neplusultra

Very cool that you posted this. I've been listening to these teachings from him all week! I'm actually considering the MP3 collection for $14.99.

I have a beginner question though:

At the end of the Rudolf Bultmann one he connects (or disconnects) Jesus to Bultmann's teachings. I've listened to the thing 5 times (literally) and I can't figure out what Sproul means here. It's the part where he says God breaks into time and Sproul accepts it into faith and then says that's what Jesus was all about. He makes some reference about the virgin birth not mattering and I can't figure out who or what he's talking about, haha! Thanks.


----------



## Prufrock

Justin,

Don't worry -- Sproul is not agreeing here with Bultmann; he is only setting forth the Bultmannian perspective. I don't know if Sproul went into Bultmann's teachings in the lecture (I just listened to the last few minutes), but Bultmann wasn't concerned with the historical, objective "facts" of the Biblical records. He didn't have an interest in denying or affirming their objective truthfulness; rather, he taught that it didn't matter one way or another whether the events described therein were factual. What mattered was the existential encounter of faith in God that one finds in scripture, which presented that faith or encounter in the mythological terms of their own day.


----------



## Neplusultra

Ahh, I see. It wasn't anything Sproul was saying personally. Thank you!


----------



## OPC'n

py3ak said:


> After listening to Sproul, it seemed unlikely that he would present anything to change one's mind - certainly the lecture contained nothing remarkable.



You're right! I listened to it again and Sproul didn't say anything that would change my mind...........I still agree with him!


----------



## py3ak

Well, maybe Part II will help you see the light!


----------



## OPC'n

py3ak said:


> Well, maybe Part II will help you see the light!



Yep! Listened to that one too. He's like wine....he just gets better with time!


----------



## py3ak

So I guess it was no help. But I think you are right that theologians get better with time - that is why Aquinas is so stimulating and fortifying.


----------



## OPC'n

py3ak said:


> So I guess it was no help. But I think you are right that theologians get better with time - that is why Aquinas is so stimulating and fortifying.



Yeah, but when you crack the seal it goes bad............j/k


----------

