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.

 

[Josheb]

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

Why? Are you saying he does not?

I am saying you don't get to as a question assuming givens that are not yet in evidence and you don't get to shift the onus onto others when trading posts with me. The question has no foundation, justification, validity or veracity until it's basis has been proven.

Is this the first time you've been caught kissing your teddy bear's toes in the closet while wearing a rubber glove stretched over your head making you look like a chicken?

What?

Is this the first time you've been caught kissing your teddy bear's toes in the closet while wearing a rubber glove stretched over your head making you look like a chicken?

I'm not..... What? I'm not kissing my teddy bears toes! I'm not wearing a glove on my head! I'm not doing anything in any closet and I don't look like a chicken!

Ummm... yeah. Is this the first time you've been caught kissing your teddy bear's toes in the closet while wearing a rubber glove stretched over your head making you look like a chicken?



Prove an anthropomorphism exists relative to the overarching concern. Prove its justification. Then I'll try to answer the question asked.

My question assumes that he does.

Yes, it does make that assumption and it makes that assumption without supporting facts or proof. I have just provided an explanation for the appearance of anthropomorphisms and how they have nothing to do with God being deceitful when He speaks (unless is it argued God makes sinners sin).

If your answer to the question is to say that he doesn't, then say he doesn't.

My answer is to say anthropomorphisms do not exist in scripture when it comes to God revealing Himself to those He wishes to understand His words. God does not speak with deceit. There is no lying or misleading by using anthropomorphisms.

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.

And I have answered that question and the answer(s) are not being addressed. X and Y, X and Y, X and Y......

I need not prove that there ARE anthropomorphisms.

I need not justify my inquiry? You can ask any question no matter how irrational and absurd it might be? And no one can ask for evidence the inquiry is valid?

Is that what you're telling the readers?

I need not acquiesce to off-topic demands.

My request is not off-topic. It is directly related to the question asked and the specifics given in the title of the op. The op assumes, as has just been acknowledged. Why was such an assumption assumed? What if everything you've been thinking about this overarching matter has been built on invalid assumption?

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

Fair enough.

 

[Josheb]

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?

Have you not added to what I asked?

Just covering various bases.

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.

Ooooo..... Think that through. If God has not made sinners then the answer to the question, "Is God lying, or misleading us by using anthropomorphisms?" is definitely "No, because God does not use anthropomorphisms," and everything built on that possibility is negated.

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).

If that is what you think then my posts have not been correctly understood.

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.

Never happened.

Now, granted, I don't think that you believe any or all of those things I suppose are implied by what you say.

Then why imply otherwise? All of that stuff (which I didn't quote) could have been worded without the word "you."


See you in the next thread.

 

[John Bauer]

I am saying you don't get to ask a question assuming givens that are not yet in evidence and you don't get to shift the onus onto others when trading posts with me.

Disregard what he said here, @makesends. If you want to ask questions that assume something for the sake of argument, go right ahead. Assuming a premise for the sake of argument is a standard and indispensable form of reasoning. It is the basis of conditional reasoning (“If P, then Q”), reductio ad absurdum, counterfactual analysis, and internal critique. None of these require that P be established as true; they require only that P be entertained hypothetically.

I think Josh probably just misspoke anyway, because he knows acting like a moderator—telling other members what they can and cannot do—is a violation of the CCAM Rules & Guidelines.

The question has no foundation, justification, validity or veracity until it's basis has been proven.

I smell a verificationist principle here, as if discourse is illegitimate unless all presuppositions are first established by evidence. Taken consistently, this principle is self-defeating. Even more fascinating, given that Josh is a presuppositionalist, his principle would forbid a Van Tilian internal critique, which depends precisely on assuming a worldview’s givens without granting their truth, in order to test their internal coherence.

Interestingly, propositions are true or false, not interrogatives. To say that a question lacks “veracity” is simply a misuse of the term.

 

[Josheb]

Disregard what he said here, @makesends. If you want to ask questions that assume something for the sake of argument, go right ahead. Assuming a premise for the sake of argument is a standard and indispensable form of reasoning. It is the basis of conditional reasoning (“If P, then Q”), reductio ad absurdum, counterfactual analysis, and internal critique. None of these require that P be established as true; they require only that P be entertained hypothetically.

I think Josh probably just misspoke anyway, because he knows acting like a moderator—telling other members what they can and cannot do—is a violation of the CCAM Rules & Guidelines.

That would be true if this were the first time this has happened with these specific assumptions but it's not. @makesends hides behind these assumptions and chronically treats the same inquiry as valid despite the fact his question has been answered many time in many threads.

I smell a verificationist principle here, as if discourse is illegitimate unless all presuppositions are first established by evidence. Taken consistently, this principle is self-defeating. Even more fascinating, given that Josh is a presuppositionalist, his principle would forbid a Van Tilian internal critique, which depends precisely on assuming a worldview’s givens without granting their truth, in order to test their internal coherence.

Interestingly, propositions are true or false, not interrogatives. To say that a question lacks “veracity” is simply a misuse of the term.

Again, my comments are predicated on an existing history in which the inquiry has been addressed multiple times and the answers ignored. That is the antithesis of discussion. At some point Van Till would ask him, "Give the arguments already presented, why do you persist in ignoring relevant information and not evaluating your own assumptions?" In the case of this particular op, and all the many threads in which he's broached the premise of God using language disingenuously and obtusely, his concerns have been addressed and that content ignored.

Perhaps your analysis will enlighten @makesends because he can ask a question predicated on assumptions but once the assumptions have been addressed it's not rational to pretend the presuppositions haven't been addressed and the question answered. Doesn't the rule prohibiting presenting "opposing views must substantively engage with rebuttals rather than merely repeating assertions" work both ways? (see also Rule 4.7). "Thoughtful engagement is encouraged over sheer volume of posts." As far as the discussion of @makesends concerns go, how to do so is not particularly complicated. If and when the substance of others' replies is engaged the many variations of the common theme won't need to be posted ad nauseam. Likewise, when the presuppositional aspects of his own positions are engaged he'll be able to make changes in his povs. Both points share a common element: a lack of engagement.



So don't disregard what I said, @makesends. This is not the first time this assumption has been made, the first time you've been asked to provide some foundation for the assumption, nor the first time a cogent explanatory reply has been provided. Explain how it is God uses words with meaning He knows humans are not capable of understanding. Explain how God uses words and then causes those words not to be understood. Explain how a revelation is not revealing because the words used have meaning for God that is not comprehensible by humans.

 

[makesends]

That would be true if this were the first time this has happened with these specific assumptions but it's not. @makesends hides behind these assumptions and chronically treats the same inquiry as valid despite the fact his question has been answered many time in many threads.

Again, my comments are predicated on an existing history in which the inquiry has been addressed multiple times and the answers ignored. That is the antithesis of discussion. At some point Van Till would ask him, "Give the arguments already presented, why do you persist in ignoring relevant information and not evaluating your own assumptions?" In the case of this particular op, and all the many threads in which he's broached the premise of God using language disingenuously and obtusely, his concerns have been addressed and that content ignored.

Perhaps your analysis will enlighten @makesends because he can ask a question predicated on assumptions but once the assumptions have been addressed it's not rational to pretend the presuppositions haven't been addressed and the question answered. Doesn't the rule prohibiting presenting "opposing views must substantively engage with rebuttals rather than merely repeating assertions" work both ways? (see also Rule 4.7). "Thoughtful engagement is encouraged over sheer volume of posts." As far as the discussion of @makesends concerns go, how to do so is not particularly complicated. If and when the substance of others' replies is engaged the many variations of the common theme won't need to be posted ad nauseam. Likewise, when the presuppositional aspects of his own positions are engaged he'll be able to make changes in his povs. Both points share a common element: a lack of engagement.

Note from history. When one poster demands a response according to his view, and the other poster acquiesces, almost invariably the two of them go off on a tangent, no doubt in some way related in some way to the OP. Very often, THAT debate takes over the thread, and devolves into contention. I'm not saying that if I answer you according to your parameters that it wouldn't be productive and non-contentious, but that it would move the thread from what I intended it to be about. If, by your refusal for honesty's sake to accommodate my bogus questions, you need me to answer yours, that's fine. But don't demand I play your game.

So don't disregard what I said, @makesends. This is not the first time this assumption has been made, the first time you've been asked to provide some foundation for the assumption, nor the first time a cogent explanatory reply has been provided. Explain how it is God uses words with meaning He knows humans are not capable of understanding. Explain how God uses words and then causes those words not to be understood. Explain how a revelation is not revealing because the words used have meaning for God that is not comprehensible by humans.

Ok. I'll start another thread. I did ask you, I think, whether you think there is no such thing as anthropomorphism in scripture. More to the point, I guess —Does God himself engage in anthropomorphism?
https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/does-god-use-anthropomorphism-in-the-scriptures.3513/

And if God himself does engage in anthropomorphism in the scriptures, what is implied? Are there better words for what I consider anthropomorphisms, that don't imply negative / false things concerning God, but still indicate that God uses human terms to describe God/God's ways/attributes? Are those negations of the notion that man is incapable of comprehending in full God's attributes or other things God intends by the language that I call, "anthropomorphisms"? Josh has used "obfuscate", "lie", "deceit", "mislead", in referring to, 'Anthropomorphism'. I'm still not sure if he means that the term, "anthropomorphism", applied to those terms I consider to be anthropomorphisms in scripture necessarily implies those negative things or not concerning God/ His communication/descriptions.

Anyhow, Josh, I would appreciate if you can answer these things in this thread as they apply to the OP, and also answer them in that newer thread in the context of the implications of the word, "anthropomorphism", or suitable other words, and please —at least in that new thread— without contentious complaint. I started it to accommodate this tangent. If I use bogus questions and assumptions there, say so, explain why/how you consider it to be so, and be done.

 

[Josheb]

Note from history. When one poster demands a response according to his view....

I asked for an explanation according to your point of view. Logic isn't a point of view. It's a method of measuring everyone's and anyone's viewpoints.

And if God himself does engage in anthropomorphism in the scriptures, what is implied?

At a minimum and intent to communicate is implied. Revelation is the revealing of knowledge and understanding in an understandable form for the purpose of being known and understood. The is basic Christian epistemology. Creation is knowable and God has made knowing creatures with the capacity to know the knowable. God, on the other hand, would be unknowable unless He made Himself known. To the degree that He makes Himself known, He does so for the purpose of being known by creatures created with the capacity to know the knowable.

Anyhow, Josh, I would appreciate if you can answer these things in this thread as they apply to the OP, and also answer them in that newer thread in the context of the implications of the word, "anthropomorphism", or suitable other words, and please —at least in that new thread— without contentious complaint. I started it to accommodate this tangent. If I use bogus questions and assumptions there, say so, explain why/how you consider it to be so, and be done.

I think we can all agree God does use anthropomorphisms, but His use of anthropomorphisms has nothing to do with your previously expressed views that humans do not understand God's words, humans interpret them anthropomorphically and thereby muck up what God intends to communicate and that then leads to folks being incapable of understanding what God means when He speaks using human language. This op, therefore, skirts concerns broached when appeals to scripture are made (specifically on divine ontology and God's design of creation, but this argument could be applied to any subject in the forum). God's use of anthropomorphisms would, ironically, be evidence of the knowability and understandability of God's word.

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
Note from history. When one poster demands a response according to his view....

I asked for an explanation according to your point of view. Logic isn't a point of view. It's a method of measuring everyone's and anyone's viewpoints.

Sounds like a claim that what you had to say was only logical. And thus, useful for measuring other views.
makesends said:
And if God himself does engage in anthropomorphism in the scriptures, what is implied?

At a minimum and intent to communicate is implied

Oh, good. For a moment I read that, an attempt to communicate. You are right, God does communicate, so no need to equivocate with "intent".

At a minimum and intent to communicate is implied. Revelation is the revealing of knowledge and understanding in an understandable form for the purpose of being known and understood. The is basic Christian epistemology. Creation is knowable and God has made knowing creatures with the capacity to know the knowable. God, on the other hand, would be unknowable unless He made Himself known. To the degree that He makes Himself known, He does so for the purpose of being known by creatures created with the capacity to know the knowable

"Yes, I know".

I think we can all agree God does use anthropomorphisms, but His use of anthropomorphisms has nothing to do with your previously expressed views that humans do not understand God's words, humans interpret them anthropomorphically and thereby muck up what God intends to communicate and that then leads to folks being incapable of understanding what God means when He speaks using human language. This op, therefore, skirts concerns broached when appeals to scripture are made (specifically on divine ontology and God's design of creation, but this argument could be applied to any subject in the forum). God's use of anthropomorphisms would, ironically, be evidence of the knowability and understandability of God's word.

Now we get to it. I don't run to that extreme. I don't say that humans don't/can't understand God's words. I say that by comparison, they do not, and that there is always more to know. This not only is because God is using human words to describe heavenly things, but that when God uses some words that humans think mean a certain thing —words that to humans necessarily invoke certain concepts— they may well not, to God (or vice versa). There are several such words, among which is "choice". While to the human mind, the concept, "choice" involves the unknown and possibilities, to God, choice means simply choosing, without implication that there is/are more than one possibility (I didn't say not "more than one option"), and without implication that there are any unknowns —except to us.

Look at the world of difference between what we have been vehemently told that 'love' means and implies, and 'faith', and even 'gift', and 'work', between the Reformed and the Pelagian. The two commentaries travel on two different roads. Does not the truth travel yet a different road from those two? What then makes anyone think that it must be one or the other that is actually right? We do have many things right, but the truth is not related to us and what we say. We are semper reformanda.

Now, to say that that whole spiel I just made has nothing to do with anthropomorphisms shows a good bit of compartmentalizing, I think. What we consider anthropomorphisms to designate as this or that, can easily fall short of accurate/completed understanding by the reader, because it was read anthropomorphically.