The Bible's Use of Words and Concepts; God's POV vs Man's; Anthropomorphism: Contingency, Choice, Possibility; and the Implications to Hermeneutics

[makesends]

I want to pursue a tangent from an earlier thread https://christcentered.community.fo...-imply-more-than-one-actual-possibility.3507/

Creaturely contingency is real.

I use the word, "contingency", (as mentioned in the WCF 3.1) as mere logical progression —the one thing depends on precedent cause (the one event is contingent upon the other). @Josheb says WCF 3.1 (forgive me Josh, if, as usual, I mis-represent what you were saying) that they mean it in the classical sense, of 'possibility' or 'indetermination'. I don't bring up the WCF here to discuss what THEY meant, but to demonstrate the difference in meaning or use of, "contingent".

Several questions here for you, John: —What do you mean by, "contingent", here, when you say, "Creaturely contingency is real"? I get the difference between creaturely contingency and divine contingency. And both of those uses described above fit your statement, if "real" means something along the lines of, "This is how creatures experience" or, "This is how it appears to their comprehension." By, "real', do you mean more than that?

There is no such thing as divine contingency.

I completely agree. As Omnipotent and First Cause and all that is implied by Omnipotence, he needn't deliberate in his mind concerning anything. Yet the Bible speaks in what I consider anthropomorphic terms. Thus the main thrust of this OP: In Hermeneutics, there are often pursuits and conclusions drawn without reference to any difference between anthropomorphisms and reality. (I say that not to criticize, but to mention it.) There are also discussions, usually more [apparently] abstract, that reference God's absolute Uniqueness, Aseity and Omnipotence, so different-in-being from what we creatures are.

An example: The Bible says God chose (elected). Is the idea then valid that comes to mind of a pool of possibles from which God picks out some upon whom to show mercy and shed his love? Or did he, rather, create those particular ones for that particular purpose, though still, like the others, unworthy of his grace?

The Bible says many such things in what I consider anthropomorphisms. Is it valid to call them that, and proceed to study without consideration of that terminology as meaning what man means by them? Are we to say to ourselves, "God must not have known—he had to look", "God was surprised!", "God suddenly became angry!"; "God regretted what he had done", or does reason compel us to see behind the human words and their human definitions?

Is God lying, or misleading us by using anthropomorphisms? Does he intend to obfuscate?

Does he speak to his children as children regardless of the range of maturity, or do these things mean more than our "plain reading"? —and by that, I mean, not the lack of hermeneutic pursuits, but the assumption of complete validity of whatever our study renders those words/ phrases/ passages to mean, apart from consideration of the anthropomorphism within it. Is it valid to say that as we mature, he intends us to use what little intelligence we have to see more than that "plain reading"?

 

[Josheb]

Do you always assume human understanding of words in the Bible (as measured by the Hebrew and Greek, not English) is always anthropomorphic? If not to what degree do you think that is the case? Does exegesis matter?

The Bible says God chose (elected). Is the idea then valid that comes to mind of a pool of possibles from which God picks out some upon whom to show mercy and shed his love?

Yes!

How is this not understood. Classic Christian thought, doctrine and practice have always held God chose from the vast pool of sinners. God did not make sinners and non-sinners. All have sinned. It was from that pool of sinners that god chose. There was no pool of sinless people from which God might have chosen and an additional pool of sinners from which He might also choose. Because the pool of sinners is enormous and the number of those chosen is comparatively small there existed from God's perspective the possibility one person might be chosen and another might not be chosen. It is assumed some sort of criteria was used but scripture is silent on that matter. It tells us God's decisions (choices) who to save was done by grace. The monergist perspective has formalized a position: Unconditional Election. God did not consider any faculties of the sinner when He made His choice. The synergist has also formalized a position: God knew who would respond to his calling and drawing.

Each perspective sets up a prospective conflict, for is the synergist position is correct then who chooses God (responds to His salvific calling and presentation of the gospel) then that choice is in the hands of the sinner...... unless God determines everything, in which case that choice or decision isn't an actual choice or decision in any normal meaning of the word. The monergist pov is less problematic because the salient choice in salvation occurs after regeneration and both regeneration and faith are gifts from God. That "gift" part leaves another silence regarding any metric God may use when He chooses from among the sinners who to save. That decision is made in/from eternity, from outside creation (and therefore time and space). The divine choice is made relevant to what for us is a temporal condition but for God is an atemporal condition .

Or did he, rather, create those particular ones for that particular purpose, though still, like the others, unworthy of his grace?

Calvinists often misunderstand Calvinism and mistaken say God made sinners and God made saints, but the dictates of scripture are that all have sinned and, therefore, the group we call "saints" or the "elect," those "in Christ," those who have salvation are ALL people who had previously sinned. If God made sinners, then He either made them sin in order to become sinners, or He made them sinners, and they simply did what sinners do: sin! The notion God literally made two different types of people is not what Calvin taught. The difference in types of people is a post-disobedient condition, not a pre-creation condition.

The Bible says many such things in what I consider anthropomorphisms. Is it valid to call them that, and proceed to study without consideration of that terminology as meaning what man means by them?

It is correct to call and actual anthropomorphism what it is. Scripture does report examples of errant human thought. It usually identifies them one way or another. I'd say it always does so but I haven't examined scripture intricately enough to post that degree of surety. What I can say is that when the whole of the Bible has been read and examined exegetically the vast majority of anthropomorphisms (real and perceived) can be identified. I have written about many of them in multiple threads. The Jewish misunderstanding of the monarchy would be one example. The Judaic understanding of the temple would be another. Both errors led to them completely missing the Messiah when he stood right in front of them commanding the elements of creation.

The Bible also provides a correct understanding of words as God intended/intends them to be understood. Evidence of a problem exists when I have to post "intended/intends" because the meaning of words as God uses them does not change. The words "life" and "death" are obvious examples of words with diverse meaning and words God explains one way or another once the hwole of scripture has been read. These are all examples I have cited multiples times in many prior threads.

Are we to say to ourselves, "God must not have known—he had to look", "God was surprised!", "God suddenly became angry!"; "God regretted what he had done", or does reason compel us to see behind the human words and their human definitions?

Well..... those examples are not all equal to one another. This is why I have often cited the necessity o appeal to the original language. God's regret in Hebrew is more accurately translated "sorrowful." It should never be translated in any way that would imply God made a mistake and needed to change His mind (and conduct). Most of those mistakes occur as a consequence of proof-texting (using a single verse to say more than what is stated when understood int he context of whole scripture).

Is God lying, or misleading us by using anthropomorphisms?

It has yet to be proven God uses anthropomorphisms. Don't assume it. Prove it.

Does he intend to obfuscate?

No.

Does he speak to his children as children regardless of the range of maturity, or do these things mean more than our "plain reading"?

No.

—and by that, I mean, not the lack of hermeneutic pursuits, but the assumption of complete validity of whatever our study renders those words/ phrases/ passages to mean, apart from consideration of the anthropomorphism within it. Is it valid to say that as we mature, he intends us to use what little intelligence we have to see more than that "plain reading"?

The "plain reading" of scripture is the one that occurs when the entire book has been read and understood. No one in their right mind takes a single sentence out of a novel and ignores everything else written therein to assert the meaning of that one sentence.

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
The Bible says God chose (elected). Is the idea then valid that comes to mind of a pool of possibles from which God picks out some upon whom to show mercy and shed his love?

Yes!

How is this not understood. Classic Christian thought, doctrine and practice have always held God chose from the vast pool of sinners. God did not make sinners and non-sinners. All have sinned. It was from that pool of sinners that god chose. There was no pool of sinless people from which God might have chosen and an additional pool of sinners from which He might also choose. Because the pool of sinners is enormous and the number of those chosen is comparatively small there existed from God's perspective the possibility one person might be chosen and another might not be chosen. It is assumed some sort of criteria was used but scripture is silent on that matter. It tells us God's decisions (choices) who to save was done by grace. The monergist perspective has formalized a position: Unconditional Election. God did not consider any faculties of the sinner when He made His choice. The synergist has also formalized a position: God knew who would respond to his calling and drawing.

Have you not added to what I asked? What I asked does not imply, if the answer is other than, "Yes, a pool of possibles is what God picked from", that God made some sinners and others not sinners. You are arguing against a strawman.

(Please read the last paragraph here before answering the below.)

Further, in Romans 9, the clay is of the same nature—one might say, of the same stock—granted, but he formed some for one purpose and some for another. I've been in and around Christendom for 70 years. While I don't claim to be any authority on classic Christian thought, I don't believe doctrine has always held that God chose from the vast pool of sinners. God chose from among sinners, before the foundation of the world. Your narrative/construction implies, it seems to me, since none are better or more worthy—more fitting, in the JW sense—than any others, that the accusation levied against Calvinism is valid, that the God of Calvinism chooses arbitrarily, i.e. with no particular purpose as to why he chose whom he chose. Does that not imply that the Bride of Christ is a haphazard collection of members?

Regardless, "classic Christian thought, doctrine and practice", while no doubt intended to invoke Orthodoxy, to which, at least since the Reformation, I give quite a bit of respect, particularly in proposing my assessments of the Bible's content and theology in general, and in particular the Doctrine of God, proper, I don't hear anything but a cry of, "Well, argue against them —nevermind what makes sense!" I don't find Orthodoxy making the kind of statement you made, that God chose from among the vast pool of [possibles]. That God chose from among sinners, I do agree. But not as though he hadn't created certain of those sinners to become the members of the perfect Bride of Christ, the Body of Christ, the Children of God, and his Dwelling Place, not of their own virtue or ontology, but by his perfect plan for them.

Your construction also fits nicely with the notion that God's choice is governed by mere chance, or just as bad, that it is not governed at all (which comes to the same thing). You bring God's power of choice down to our level, though he is much smarter and knows more than we do, so is able to overcome circumstances for good.

Now, granted, I don't think that you believe any or all of those things I suppose are implied by what you say. But how are they not implied? Is God not particular? Is there anything random about him?

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
Is God lying, or misleading us by using anthropomorphisms?

It has yet to be proven God uses anthropomorphisms. Don't assume it. Prove it

Why? Are you saying he does not?

My question assumes that he does. If your answer to the question is to say that he doesn't, then say he doesn't. My argument isn't that he does. My question has to do with whether those anthropomorphisms are accurate on the 'surface read' to describe him. I need not prove that there ARE anthropomorphisms. I need not acquiesce to off-topic demands.

I think I will wait for others to chime in before continuing to respond to your post.

 

[John Bauer]

What do you mean by contingent here, when you say “creaturely contingency is real”?

You and I appear to mean basically the same thing, defining it logically (contingent vs. necessary), not modally (possible vs. actual). A thing or event is contingent if it doesn’t have to exist or occur in itself, but exists or occurs because God decreed it. Reformed theologians generally, and the Westminster divines specifically, affirmed necessitas consequentiae (the necessity of the consequence) and rejected necessitas consequentis (the necessity of the thing itself). Calvin discusses this in the Institutes (1.16.9). Think of the distinction like this: Given the conditional statement, “If P, then Q,” it's the idea that the link between P and Q is necessary, even if P and Q themselves are contingent.

I get the difference between creaturely contingency and divine contingency. And both uses described above fit your statement, if real means something along the lines of, "This is how creatures experience," or, "This is how it appears to their comprehension." By real do you mean more than that?

Yes. I am using real in a metaphysical or ontological sense, not merely phenomenological or epistemic. Creaturely contingency is an ontological reality; it is constitutive of what it means to be a creature. All of creation, including man himself, is dependent at every moment on God’s sovereign will. God alone exists; all else subsists. God alone is being; all else is becoming.

I completely agree. As Omnipotent and First Cause and all that is implied by Omnipotence, he needn't deliberate in his mind concerning anything.

I would say that it’s inconceivable for God to deliberate, for he is actus purus (pure actuality). Deliberation implies discursive movement—considering possibilities, transitioning from undecided to decided—which presupposes potency or states not yet actual, and therefore temporality and change. All of this contradicts God as he is.

Yet the Bible speaks in what I consider anthropomorphic terms.

I would call it analogical, not anthropomorphic.

The Bible says God chose (elected). Is the idea then valid that comes to mind of a pool of possibles from which God picks out some upon whom to show mercy and shed his love? Or did he, rather, create those particular ones for that particular purpose, though still, like the others, unworthy of his grace?

That is why we must emphasize that election and creation are logically ordered, not temporally ordered. It is not a sequence.

Is God lying, or misleading us, by using anthropomorphisms?

No, he is lisping. As Calvin wrote (1.13.1), “For who even of slight intelligence does not understand that, as nurses commonly do with infants, God is wont in measure to ‘lisp’ in speaking to us? Thus such forms of speaking do not so much express clearly what God is like as accommodate the knowledge of him to our slight capacity. To do this he must descend far beneath his loftiness.”

 

[makesends]

John Bauer said:
Metaphysical possibility is not something God consults and interacts with. There are no modal facts that exist independent of God and his eternal decree from which he can choose and actualize. Anything that has existed, does exist, or can exist is only from, through, and for him who knows the end from the beginning and ordains whatsoever comes to pass with an eternal act of will.

Creaturely contingency is real. There is no such thing as divine contingency.

makesends said:
I get the difference between creaturely contingency and divine contingency. And both uses described above fit your statement, if real means something along the lines of, "This is how creatures experience," or, "This is how it appears to their comprehension." By real do you mean more than that?

Yes. I am using real in a metaphysical or ontological sense, not merely phenomenological or epistemic. Creaturely contingency is an ontological reality; it is constitutive of what it means to be a creature. All of creation, including man himself, is dependent at every moment on God’s sovereign will. God alone exists; all else subsists. God alone is being; all else is becoming

Oh my! That is beautiful and full of implication! (—For example, the paralleling of, "God alone exists; all else subsists." to, "God's will alone is free. Our choosing is established only through his will.")

But that isn't (or is it?) what I'm thinking as relates to 'creaturely contingency'. Allow me to push a bit. You say creaturely contingency is real, not just supposedly real (epistemically), but metaphysically. If I'm following you right, you mean to say that we (creatures) are actually bound by contingencies (not by unordained possibles, but actual precedent causes). So, in my use of, and I think your use of, "contingency", that statement is valid, but not in the use of 'contingency' where choices, in order to be truly dynamic, the contingency (by the definition: the "who knows?", —the unrealized nature of choices, but not the choices themselves) is established by God's decree, precedent causes irrelevant. (By the way, I'm wondering if this is something @QVQ was getting at in that other thread, describing as Providence—the necessary causal relationship of precedent causes to choice.)

 

[makesends]

You and I appear to mean basically the same thing, defining it logically (contingent vs. necessary), not modally (possible vs. actual). A thing or event is contingent if it doesn’t have to exist or occur in itself, but exists or occurs because God decreed it. Reformed theologians generally, and the Westminster divines specifically, affirmed necessitas consequentiae (the necessity of the consequence) and rejected necessitas consequentis (the necessity of the thing itself). Calvin discusses this in the Institutes (1.16.9). Think of the distinction like this: Given the conditional statement, “If P, then Q,” it's the idea that the link between P and Q is necessary, even if P and Q themselves are contingent.

I think I follow that. @Josheb and I have disagreed over what the WCF 3.1 intends by, "contingency". I'm not sure he's wrong. Grammatically, what he is saying makes sense.

Yes. I am using real in a metaphysical or ontological sense, not merely phenomenological or epistemic. Creaturely contingency is an ontological reality; it is constitutive of what it means to be a creature. All of creation, including man himself, is dependent at every moment on God’s sovereign will. God alone exists; all else subsists. God alone is being; all else is becoming.

That's plain beautiful

I would say that it’s inconceivable for God to deliberate, for he is actus purus (pure actuality). Deliberation implies discursive movement—considering possibilities, transitioning from undecided to decided—which presupposes potency or states not yet actual, and therefore temporality and change. All of this contradicts God as he is.

Well put. For God to think is to do, not to deliberate on pre-existing set of circumstances and the implications of acting on them.

I would call it analogical, not anthropomorphic.

That's fair. Maybe even an improvement on 'anthropomorphic'. But I think of anthropomorphism in launching concepts against the mindset that sees God as being like us and thinking like we do.

That is why we must emphasize that election and creation are logically ordered, not temporally ordered. It is not a sequence.

Well, not temporal sequence, anyhow, but yes, causal sequence. Election is logically very much cause, and creation (the noun) is an effect.

At the risk of going off topic, here, one of the things that is rarely argued by those opposing determinism, is that although they do claim that God ordained that choice be uncaused (which to me is logically self-contradictory), Omnipotence which does establish the principle of causation, should be able of whole cloth to deny that principle to certain effects. Perhaps the fact that too is logically self-contradictory is why they don't say that. But they do say the other. I can only answer them by saying, "Shall we then abandon logic, in favor of unfettered speculation?" I can't say that God cannot do that. Only that it makes no sense; he has no reason, no need, no desire for that, and it does not fit what we know of him.

No, he is lisping. As Calvin wrote (1.13.1), “For who even of slight intelligence does not understand that, as nurses commonly do with infants, God is wont in measure to ‘lisp’ in speaking to us? Thus such forms of speaking do not so much express clearly what God is like as accommodate the knowledge of him to our slight capacity. To do this he must descend far beneath his loftiness.”

Ha! I love that.