# Genus/Species and God



## Goodcheer68 (Apr 6, 2018)

Im reading James Dolezal’s book _God Without Parts_ that argues for the Doctrine of Divine Simplicity. The book is pretty deep but I'm getting through it. There are however, a couple of things in the book that I'm not sure I am fully understanding. I understand for the most part that God’s existence is His essence which we cannot say of any other being. At the very least all other beings participate in existence which makes them composite beings. The strand of argument that I'm trying to get a clearer picture on is with the Genus/Species categories. The book argues something like the following: God is not a Genus nor can be therefore He is simple. What exactly is this line of reasoning getting at? Is it meaning that because genus is a common grouping of a variety of species (which also share similarities in their natures) and God’s being is like no other that he is not able to be logically and ontologically grouped with any other being? Or am I way off? Help me to understand the Genus/Species distinctions as it pertains to God.

Thanks


----------



## TylerRay (Apr 6, 2018)

What are the species in the construction he is arguing against? Is he arguing that we are not to think of _God _as a genus and the Persons of the Trinity as species?


----------



## Goodcheer68 (Apr 6, 2018)

Simply that God can’t be put in the categories of genus/species.


----------



## py3ak (Apr 6, 2018)

This is probably straight Aquinas:

_I answer that_, A thing can be in a genus in two ways; either absolutely and properly, as a species contained under a genus; or as being reducible to it, as principles and privations. For example, a point and unity are reduced to the genus of quantity, as its principles; while blindness and all other privations are reduced to the genus of habit. But in neither way is God in a genus. That He cannot be a species of any genus may be shown in three ways. First, because a species is constituted of genus and difference. Now that from which the difference constituting the species is derived, is always related to that from which the genus is derived, as actuality is related to potentiality. For animal is derived from sensitive nature, by concretion as it were, for that is animal, which has a sensitive nature. Rational being, on the other hand, is derived from intellectual nature, because that is rational, which has an intellectual nature, and intelligence is compared to sense, as actuality is to potentiality. The same argument holds good in other things. Hence since in God actuality is not added to potentiality, it is impossible that He should be in any genus as a species. Secondly, since the existence of God is His essence, if God were in any genus, He would be the genus “being”, because, since genus is predicated as an essential it refers to the essence of a thing. But the Philosopher has shown (Metaph. iii) that being cannot be a genus, for every genus has differences distinct from its generic essence. Now no difference can exist distinct from being; for non-being cannot be a difference. It follows then that God is not in a genus. Thirdly, because all in one genus agree in the quiddity or essence of the genus which is predicated of them as an essential, but they differ in their existence. For the existence of man and of horse is not the same; as also of this man and that man: thus in every member of a genus, existence and quiddity — i.e. essence — must differ. But in God they do not differ, as shown in the preceding article. Therefore it is plain that God is not in a genus as if He were a species. From this it is also plain that He has no genus nor difference, nor can there be any definition of Him; nor, save through His effects, a demonstration of Him: for a definition is from genus and difference; and the mean of a demonstration is a definition. That God is not in a genus, as reducible to it as its principle, is clear from this, that a principle reducible to any genus does not extend beyond that genus; as, a point is the principle of continuous quantity alone; and unity, of discontinuous quantity. But God is the principle of all being. Therefore He is not contained in any genus as its principle.

(ST P1, Q3, A5)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Apr 7, 2018)

In other words, God is a simple and uncompounded spiritual being. By _simple_ we do not mean God is dim-witted. Nor do we mean that God is easy to understand.

_Simple_, as a divine attribute, is the opposite of _composite_, the opposite of _compounded_. God is not made up of parts, composed of a genus (_class_), differentiations of _species_ by attributes within a _genus_, and so on.

Together, form/matter composites may be defined according to _genus_ and _species_. _Genus _is the more generic term used to set off a group of similar things from other groups, while _species_ picks out individuals within the genus by their specific differences. _Genus _refers to the matter of a thing, and the specific difference to its form.

So a man, for example, is made up of _soul _(form) and _body _(matter), and this essence is defined as _rational _(species) _animal _(genus). Here the term “human” can be predicated of many individuals but not limited to any one of them (as if, _to be Socrates_ is _to be human_ may convert _to being human_ is _to be Socrates_).

HT: Beaumont, Analogical God Talk

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 7, 2018)

early church theologians said that God was _beyond being _(hyper-ousia; also see Plato's Republic 509b).


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 7, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> early church theologians said that God was _beyond being _(hyper-ousia; also see Plato's Republic 509b).


God is I Am Who I Am, is He not? His existence is just beyond any label that we wish to place Him under?


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 7, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> God is I Am Who I Am, is He not? His existence is just beyond any label that we wish to place Him under?



Sort of. Being is sometimes used to include all that is. If we place God in that category then we have identified creature and Creator. So they sought to get around that by saying God is outside of Being.


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 7, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Sort of. Being is sometimes used to include all that is. If we place God in that category then we have identified creature and Creator. So they sought to get around that by saying God is outside of Being.


God is and should always be seen as being beyond us, period.


----------



## Afterthought (Apr 7, 2018)

God is a Spirit. If God is not a genus, how might we understand the Catechism question? Does it err on its own? (Perhaps we must understand the Catechism in light of the Confession: God is a most pure Spirit. Or we must understand the Catechism simply to mean a personal immaterial being...although that seems to put God into the species of personal immaterial beings, of which there are other species.)

Edit: Actually, Thomas Aquinas may have already answered the question. As soon as we start to give a definition of God, we are putting him into a genus. So it is inevitable that we start referring to God as "a Spirit" or even "a most pure Spirit."

"Therefore it is plain that God is not in a genus as if He were a species. From this it is also plain that He has no genus nor difference, nor can there be any definition of Him; nor, save through His effects, a demonstration of Him: for a definition is from genus and difference; and the mean of a demonstration is a definition."

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Apr 7, 2018)

Indeed. God is _sui generis_, constituting a class alone : inique, particular.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Apr 7, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> God is and should always be seen as being beyond us, *period*.


David,

Brother, we need to tread lightly here, qualifying that which we *assert briefly*. Not a few who stumble across our often naked assertions, will fall into error. It is better that we be more verbose explaining our terse pronouncements, than to avoid the possibly of leading others to sin. We are all prone to creating intellectual idols of God or Our Lord Jesus Christ in the _idol factories_ of our minds, and then go off worshipping them, at our temporal and/or eternal peril.

God's _ineffability _(incapable of being expressed in words), is not a warrant to seek to know something true about Him, truths that are _didactically_ (intended to teach) expressed in Holy Writ.

To imply God is "_beyond us, period_" relegates God to a being we can have no true comprehension about concerning who He really is, especially when God explicitly teaches us all that we need to know about Him. It is certainly true that we cannot fully apprehend who God is, for it that were possible, we, in effect, would mini Gods.

Unsurprisingly, Job never received direct answers to His questions from God. Rather Job was treated to an explanation describing God's transcendence, a lengthy _reductio ad absurdum_ (reduction to absurdity) if you will, answers that rightly left Job speechless in the knowledge of how foolish his demands were upon God. Therefore, always keeping in mind the _Creator-created_ distinction should restrain our human desires to place _God in the dock _(on trial), demanding that He give an account to us.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 7, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> David,
> 
> Brother, we need to tread lightly here, qualifying that which we *assert briefly*. Not a few who stumble across our often naked assertions, will fall into error. It is better that we be more verbose explaining our terse pronouncements, than to avoid the possibly of leading others to sin. We are all prone to creating intellectual idols of God or Our Lord Jesus Christ in the _idol factories_ of our minds, and then go off worshipping them, at our temporal and/or eternal peril.
> 
> ...


We can know God and who He is by the scriptures and especially in the person of Jesus Christ, but that there will always be with God that aspect of Him still beyond us.


----------



## Goodcheer68 (Apr 7, 2018)

Afterthought said:


> Edit: Actually, Thomas Aquinas may have already answered the question. As soon as we start to give a definition of God, we are putting him into a genus. So it is inevitable that we start referring to God as "a Spirit" or even "a most pure Spirit."
> 
> "Therefore it is plain that God is not in a genus as if He were a species. From this it is also plain that He has no genus nor difference, nor can there be any definition of Him; nor, save through His effects, a demonstration of Him: for a definition is from genus and difference; and the mean of a demonstration is a definition."



So based on this and what Patrick said I was/am on the right track with understanding what Dolezal is trying to get at with the Genus/species distinctions.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## py3ak (Apr 7, 2018)

Yes, the idea is that God is not part of a larger class (genus) but distinguished from other members of that class by a specific difference.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## earl40 (Apr 7, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> We can know God and who He is by the scriptures and especially in the person of Jesus Christ, but that there will always be with God that aspect of Him still beyond us.



Exactly, this is where archetypal and ectypal thinking comes. All we know of God is accommodated, and this stooping down is not as He is in Himself.


----------



## bookslover (Apr 7, 2018)

Afterthought said:


> God is a Spirit."



Better: God is Spirit.


----------



## Afterthought (Apr 7, 2018)

I don't see how "God is Spirit" is better with regards to genus/species. Not only is it unconfessional language, but either one still ends up with God being a species of immaterial beings (taking "Spirit" to mean a quality of God, like God is light or love, and then separately noticing God is a distinct being from elsewhere in Scripture; concluding then that God is an immaterial personal being) or one ends up with all immaterial beings being emanations of God's being (taking "Spirit" to mean God is immateriality, like God is truth itself).


----------



## earl40 (Apr 8, 2018)

Afterthought said:


> I don't see how "God is Spirit" is better with regards to genus/species. Not only is it unconfessional language, but either one still ends up with God being a species of immaterial beings (taking "Spirit" to mean a quality of God, like God is light or love, and then separately noticing God is a distinct being from elsewhere in Scripture; concluding then that God is an immaterial personal being) or one ends up with all immaterial beings being emanations of God's being (taking "Spirit" to mean God is immateriality, like God is truth itself).



God is spirit is indeed better than God is a spirit. For the later insinuates God is like angels. God in His divine essence is a spirit, and angels derive their spiritual essence from God. The best we can do or know God is by analogy.


----------



## Jeff Low (Apr 8, 2018)

I'm also currently working closely on this book by Dolezal. 

In that section, he is essentially denying of God 6 different models of composition. 
1. Bodily Parts
2. Matter and Form
3. Supposit and Nature
4. Genus and Species
5. Substance and Accident
6. Essence and Existence

In the specific sub-section on 'Genus and Species', he mentions that all non-divine beings are defined within a species in a genus. That cannot be said of God. 

His basic point here is that God cannot be reduced to some specific class of being, nor can he be contracted into a particular genus by some specific difference. As in the quote by Bavinck at the end of this section, God does not belong to a member of any genus nor any species of a genus.

A species necessarily contains additional characteristics (parts) in addition to the genus. Such cannot be said of God. 

In the middle section, Dolezal (citing Aquinas) gives three reasons for denying God is composed of a genus and specific difference. 
1. The species-genus composition is in fact a conceptual act-potency composition respectively. 
2. If there is any genus God would have to be in, the genus would be called "being". Yet being or non-being are not specific differences, thus being cannot be properly called a genus. Things participate in being differently than a species participates in genus. 
3. A species consists of additional characteristics on top of the characteristics which define a genus. This is impossible in God. 

Hope that helps. It does take a couple of readings in the various sections to grasp the metaphysical concepts in this book, but I have found that it can be the most rewarding. One thing I found helpful is that I often have to properly understand the earlier concepts before I progress to the next section, as the later sections build upon the foundation laid down by the previous sections. (There were times when I had to properly revisit some earlier sections I had previously glossed over, simply because I got hopelessly lost in the later section.)



Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## arongahagan (Apr 9, 2018)

If you are familiar with Van Til, in Van Til-speak, there is a Creator/creature distinction fundamental to reality. Each being is either in the former or latter category, but we cannot group Creator and creature into the same category of 'Being' and proceed to say 'things true about _being in general_.' As stated above, God is _sui generis_, utterly Independent, and exists _a se_. No other being has these attributes; all other beings are dependent upon Him. This is why God is not an instance of the class 'Being in general' -- He (as Creator) is essentially unique from all other (created) beings.

God is also not an instance of a class in the sense that 'God' is the class (or genus), and the Christian God is one instance (or species), the Islamic 'god' is another instance (or species), the Hebrew God another, etc. In which case, to identify the Christian God distinctly we would have to add attributes to those of the class--thus making God composite/complex rather than simple. Van Til (and later, Bahnsen) would apply this truth when teaching that we do not _first _argue for the existence of 'A'_ god_, and then proceed to distinguish 'THE' Christian God. Instead, we argue first, last, and only, for God as revealed to us in Scripture. Van Til makes this point well in the beginning of _The Defense of the Faith_.

If you haven't read Dolezaal's _God Without Parts_ I would highly recommend starting there -- and follow his advice, perhaps, about reading Weinandy too.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 10, 2018)

Jeff Low said:


> I'm also currently working closely on this book by Dolezal.
> 
> In that section, he is essentially denying of God 6 different models of composition.
> 1. Bodily Parts
> ...


God is the First Causer, He is Spirit, He is beyond all as He alone is Eternal and uncreated.


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 10, 2018)

Who was it that called God has being the Ultimate source of Being?


----------



## earl40 (Apr 11, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Who was it that called God has being the Ultimate source of Being?



Was that a soft ball?  Acts 17:28


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 11, 2018)

earl40 said:


> Was that a soft ball?  Acts 17:28


I knew about that, but wasn't their a Theologian that spoke something along that line, maybe a Paul Tillich?


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 11, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I knew about that, but wasn't their a Theologian that spoke something along that line, maybe a Paul Tillich?



Tillich spoke of God as the Ground of Being. 

Barth spoke of God as "Wholly Other" (cf. Commentary on Romans).


----------



## earl40 (Apr 11, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Tillich spoke of God as the Ground of Being.
> 
> Barth spoke of God as "Wholly Other" (cf. Commentary on Romans).



Which of course God is indeed "wholly other".


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 11, 2018)

earl40 said:


> Which of course God is indeed "wholly other".



Depends on how that is glossed. Is God so wholly other that nothing can be predicated of him, including the claim that God is wholly other? That's a reason that Reformed orthodox avoided that kind of language about God.


----------



## earl40 (Apr 12, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Depends on how that is glossed. Is God so wholly other that nothing can be predicated of him, including the claim that God is wholly other? That's a reason that Reformed orthodox avoided that kind of language about God.



The reformed have the idea in the confessions of "wholly other"...."This communion which the saints have with Christ, *does 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.

One may avoid the use of the phrase "wholly other", but the definition of the phrase means exactly that God is such. in my opinion most Christians think it is appropriate to use the "The Image of God" as if men can posses what God ALONE has in Himself.

The loss of this proper type of thinking makes God in man's image which runs rampant in todays thinking.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 12, 2018)

earl40 said:


> One may avoid the use of the phrase "wholly other", but the definition of the phrase means exactly that God is such. in my opinion most Christians think it is appropriate to use the "The Image of God" as if men can posses what God ALONE has in Himself.



The problem is, if you say "wholly other" in theological conversation today it automatically means Karl Barth unless you immediately qualify otherwise. On the other hand, if you say archetypal, it doesn't mean Karl Barth.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## earl40 (Apr 12, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> The problem is, if you say "wholly other" in theological conversation today it automatically means Karl Barth unless you immediately qualify otherwise. On the other hand, if you say archetypal, it doesn't mean Karl Barth.



It is sad what you wrote is true. By avoiding the term wholly other the idea of God being altogether other had been mostly lost. What is especially sad is what is being taught in seminaries today, as if there is such thing as communicable attributes in the archetypal sense. If our pastors and RE do not understand this 101 class of the doctrine of God what can we expect of the person in the pews like you and I?


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 12, 2018)

earl40 said:


> It is sad what you wrote is true. By avoiding the term wholly other the idea of God being altogether other had been mostly lost. What is especially sad is what is being taught in seminaries today, as if there is such thing as communicable attributes in the archetypal sense. If our pastors and RE do not understand this 101 class of the doctrine of God what can we expect of the person in the pews like you and I?



I'm curious: can you show me Reformed orthodox before Karl Barth who called God "Wholly Other?"


----------



## earl40 (Apr 12, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I'm curious: can you show me Reformed orthodox before Karl Barth who called God "Wholly Other?"



http://www.reformation21.org/confession/2013/02/chapter-71-part-one.php

https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/neo-orthodoxy-pt1-r-c-sproul.53200/

Also do I have to use those exact words? How about transcendent otherness?

http://renewingyourmind.org/2017/11/02/the-sight-of-worship


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 12, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Depends on how that is glossed. Is God so wholly other that nothing can be predicated of him, including the claim that God is wholly other? That's a reason that Reformed orthodox avoided that kind of language about God.


Didn't he mean by that terminology that God exists so far beyond us, as being the only eternal Being, that we can only relate to Him through the scriptures and in Jesus Christ, as otherwise it would be like a ant trying to understand a man?


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 12, 2018)

earl40 said:


> It is sad what you wrote is true. By avoiding the term wholly other the idea of God being altogether other had been mostly lost. What is especially sad is what is being taught in seminaries today, as if there is such thing as communicable attributes in the archetypal sense. If our pastors and RE do not understand this 101 class of the doctrine of God what can we expect of the person in the pews like you and I?


what we can know nd understand about God come through to us in the scriptures and in Jesus, but we do not have an exhaustive knowledge of Him, as he is beyond our means to fully grasp, more of the need to know information.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 12, 2018)

earl40 said:


> http://www.reformation21.org/confession/2013/02/chapter-71-part-one.php
> 
> https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/neo-orthodoxy-pt1-r-c-sproul.53200/
> 
> ...



Fair enough. I know what Oliphint is saying, but 99 out of 100 times "Wholly Other" means Barth's god.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 12, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Didn't he mean by that terminology that God exists so far beyond us, as being the only eternal Being, that we can only relate to Him through the scriptures and in Jesus Christ, as otherwise it would be like a ant trying to understand a man?



That's what Earl meant. That's not what Barth meant, who popularized that term.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 12, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's what Earl meant. That's not what Barth meant, who popularized that term.


What did barth mean by using that term?


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 12, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> What did barth mean by using that term?



God is so transcendent as to be completely unknowable except in the dynamic act of Revelation in Christ Jesus.


----------



## earl40 (Apr 12, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> God is so transcendent as to be completely unknowable except in the dynamic act of Revelation in Christ Jesus.



If Barth did express such in what you wrote he is correct.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 12, 2018)

earl40 said:


> If Barth did express such in what you wrote he is correct.



Do you hold to general revelation?


----------



## Goodcheer68 (Apr 12, 2018)

Barth's idea of a wholly other God is wholly un-Reformed. Romans 1:19-22 says that God's invisible attributes are plainly seen in creation. And through creation man knows God but refuses to honor Him.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Apr 13, 2018)

Worth a read is the attached, written by Van Til when Barth was still completing his magnum opus. This is Van Til being perspicuous and pointed. 

"Never in the history of the church has the triune God been so completely and inextricably intertwined with his own creature as he has been in modern dialectical thought." - Van Til

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## earl40 (Apr 13, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Do you hold to general revelation?



Of course I do.  That general revelation is not God in Himself. It is manifesting His works and not His essence.


----------



## earl40 (Apr 13, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Worth a read is the attached, written by Van Til when Barth was still completing his magnum opus. This is Van Til being perspicuous and pointed.
> 
> "Never in the history of the church has the triune God been so completely and inextricably intertwined with his own creature as he has been in modern dialectical thought." - Van Til



This may an instance where Van Til mixed the ectypal with the archyetypal?


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 13, 2018)

earl40 said:


> Of course I do.  That general revelation is not God in Himself. It is manifesting His works and not His essence.



But we don't know God in himself in special revelation, either. 

Are unbelievers, having only general revelation, able to know God, or be said to be knowing God (gnontes ton theon).


----------



## earl40 (Apr 13, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> But we don't know God in himself in special revelation, either.



I agree.


BayouHuguenot said:


> Are unbelievers, having only general revelation, able to know God, or be said to be knowing God (gnontes ton theon).



This is where I think you are mixing up ectypal theology with archetypal theology. Even unbelievers know there is a God via ectype theology, but that they do not now him through Jesus. Believers know God through Jesus who is the ultimate ectypal type.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 13, 2018)

earl40 said:


> I agree.
> 
> 
> This is where I think you are mixing up ectypal theology with archetypal theology. Even unbelievers know there is a God via ectype theology, but that they do not now him through Jesus. Believers know God through Jesus who is the ultimate ectypal type.



I didn't confuse anything. Even our special revelation is ectypal. You originally said in post #40 



> If Barth did express such in what you wrote he is correct.


----------



## earl40 (Apr 13, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I didn't confuse anything. Even our special revelation is ectypal. You originally said in post #40



Can you see your quote of Barth as you believing it is fundamentally incorrect, and of your follow up questions to me suggesting such?


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 13, 2018)

In post #39 I wrote, summarizing Barth:



> God is so transcendent as to be completely unknowable except in the dynamic act of Revelation in Christ Jesus.



I believe Barth is wrong, as this denies Psalm 19.

You responded in post #40:



> If Barth did express such in what you wrote he is correct.



In post #44 you note:



> That general revelation is not God in Himself. It is manifesting His works and not His essence.



This is a red herring, since even in special revelation we don't know God in his essence.

So to conclude, if you agree with Barth per post #40, then you can't affirm Psalm 19.


----------



## earl40 (Apr 13, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> God is so transcendent as to be completely unknowable except in the dynamic act of Revelation in Christ Jesus.
> Click to expand...
> I believe Barth is wrong, as this denies Psalm 19.



Barth is right when speaking of the archetypal God. The problem with Bart, from what I have read, is that he applies the unknowably of God in the ectypal revelation. So yes you are correct that Bart is wrong about Psalm 19, but right *IF* he only applied this to God in se.

Believe it or not we may agree with each other. The only quibble I have in _your_ original quote the of one word bolded below....

God is so transcendent as to be completely unknowable *except* in the dynamic act of Revelation in Christ Jesus. Yes we can know God in the ectypal sense but not in the archetypal sense. No *exceptions* allowed.


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 13, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> God is so transcendent as to be completely unknowable except in the dynamic act of Revelation in Christ Jesus.


So not even found in the scriptures inspired to us by Him then?


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 13, 2018)

Goodcheer68 said:


> Barth's idea of a wholly other God is wholly un-Reformed. Romans 1:19-22 says that God's invisible attributes are plainly seen in creation. And through creation man knows God but refuses to honor Him.


God makes Himself known to us His creation, and by the written word, and in Jesus Christ.


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 13, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> But we don't know God in himself in special revelation, either.
> 
> Are unbelievers, having only general revelation, able to know God, or be said to be knowing God (gnontes ton theon).


Didn't Jesus say to us though if we have seen and known Him, which we do in the scriptures, than we have also seen and known the Father?


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 13, 2018)

earl40 said:


> Barth is right when speaking of the archetypal God. The problem with Bart, from what I have read, is that he applies the unknowably of God in the ectypal revelation. So yes you are correct that Bart is wrong about Psalm 19, but right *IF* he only applied this to God in se.
> 
> Believe it or not we may agree with each other. The only quibble I have in _your_ original quote the of one word bolded below....
> 
> God is so transcendent as to be completely unknowable *except* in the dynamic act of Revelation in Christ Jesus. Yes we can know God in the ectypal sense but not in the archetypal sense. No *exceptions* allowed.



We agree in the sense that we both hold to the a/e distinction. The red flags for many of us is that language like "wholly Other" is almost always Barthian.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 13, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> So not even found in the scriptures inspired to us by Him then?


 Barth would say that the Scriptures are a witness to divine revelation, but not revelation itself.


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 13, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Barth would say that the Scriptures are a witness to divine revelation, but not revelation itself.


He did not hold to an Inerrant and fully inspired scripture viewpoint though, correct?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Apr 13, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> He did not to Inerrant and fully inspired scripture viewpoint though, correct?


Please correct the grammar above and perhaps an answer may be provided. It appears the word "hold" is missing before "to" above, no? Review your posts after submitting them. Make corrections so we are not forced to become mind readers.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 13, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> He did not to Inerrant and fully inspired scripture viewpoint though, correct?



No. Barth might have been the leading critic against an early form of inerrancy.


----------



## earl40 (Apr 13, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> We agree in the sense that we both hold to the a/e distinction. The red flags for many of us is that language like "wholly Other" is almost always Barthian.



I agree, though when we speak of such distinctions most (approx 95 plus percent) would not agree with such in the "reformed" world today. I know this is true for I have not found one who agrees in substance that God is holy other. That includes people like RC Sproul and he was no slouch.


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 13, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Please correct the grammar above and perhaps an answer may be provided. It appears the word "hold" is missing before "to" above, no? Review your posts after submitting them. Make corrections so we are not forced to become mind readers.


Done

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 13, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> No. Barth might have been the leading critic against an early form of inerrancy.


He was one who saw the scriptures as containing the word of God, but not really becoming that to us until the Spirit revealed them to us, correct?
More of a subjective then objective inspiration?


----------



## Goodcheer68 (Apr 13, 2018)

We probably should start another thread as this has strayed far from the genus/species question


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 14, 2018)

Goodcheer68 said:


> We probably should start another thread as this has strayed far from the genus/species question


I have just done that right now!

Reactions: Like 1


----------

