The Nature And Relationship Of God And Creation

[stephenpurdy]

Citing rabbis from Chabad (ultra-orthodox) on this is like citing fundamentalist polygamous Mormons:  You're not likely to get an unbiased and objective view based on scholarship.  The same applies to citing primarily views from Hebrew grammarians of a century ago.

 

Of course, since you can't read the Hebrew text, this makes no sense to you.  Your theological preconceptions override any other consideration.

 

Creatio ex nihilo is a late Jewish-Christian-Muslim dogma, and it is not biblical.  As usual, you have it backward.

 

While we go over the Hebrew text in detail, Daniel never responded to the original problem that was presented to him. 

 

Has there ever been a created person, in "Creatio Ex Nihilo" theology, who was NOT reprobate? If God did not will there to be reprobate beings, then he could have simply decided not to create any of us; or decided to create us differently (such as a different nature or different characteristics).   Deciding to create humanity as he did proves that this God was willing to create reprobate beings, when creating ANY kind of being that is logically possible would have been available to God. This is because God is creating, ... supposedly out of God's own mind.

 

In that theology, God created every single aspect of our being. If we are ignorant (no knowledge of good and evil), it is because God created us ignorant. If we lack certain moral characteristics or obedience, it is because God created us with a lack of moral characteristics or obedience. We are and will be EXACTLY what God created us to be, IF we are created entirely from God's own mind (ie "out of nothing").

 

The Calvinist Hausam was correct when he wrote, "If our choices are undetermined by God and first-causal by nature, they therefore cannot be effects of God’s creative activity. They cannot be explained by it or traced back to it. They are wholly self-existent or self-originated. God cannot create uncaused choices, directly or indirectly. He cannot create them directly, nor can he start in motion a chain of causes and effects that eventually leads to them, for the very simple reason that they are, by definition, uncaused or self-caused. And the choices here cannot be separated from the person choosing. Since the choice is uncaused, the will that produces the choice must be uncaused. Since God did not create (even indirectly) any of the actual choices of the will, he did not create whatever it is in the will that is the cause of the actual choices we make. Even proponents of libertarian freedom will admit, although paradoxically, that the choices we make are the results of the motivations, desires, loves, values, priorities, beliefs, etc., that constitute who we are, that make up the real essence of our actual being. That is why our choices reveal who we are. If our choices were not produced from the essence of our being, they would not be our choices fundamentally and would not reveal anything about who we are."

 

Even if one would to try to avoid the logic presented above, which is solid, there is still another problem.  God COULD HAVE chosen to create ONLY the individuals that God knew would make "good decisions", while refraining from creating those who He knew would make "poor decisions".  This would not have taken away the "choice" of any of those who were created.  

 

Armenians can't defeat the logic presented by Hausam, and they are also still haunted by the fact that God purposefully created individuals that He knew were destined for eternal misery/damnation, but decided to create those individuals anyways.

 

The theology is a DISASTER!  ... and Joseph Smith somehow just elevated the doctrine above and beyond these critical problems.

 

Genius , or revelation.

 

-Stephen

Edited October 10, 2015 by stephenpurdy

[stephenpurdy]

Let me add this, because Daniel is trying to be an Arminian and he cites Roger Olsen, who attempts to defend Arminianism.  See HERE (including my dialog with Olsen at the bottom in the comments section).  Note: You will see that Roger Olsen could not even attempt to answer the post.  Rather than addressing the arguments, he posed a question that did not address the issue at all.  These guys, when you really go into it, are really, really shallow.

 

I gave Olsen a commentary/response similar to my previous post.  My next comment went something like this:

 

Mark Hausam is a Calvinist. He has to be, because that is the logical conclusion that is drawn from believing in Ex Nihilo Creation. I am not a Calvinist, because I reject Ex Nihilo creation. I DO understand what Arminianism attempts to do, but I disagree with its logical contradictions. Arminians try to to "have their cake, and eat it too." Let me explain:

 

Arminians try to appeal to logic against Calvinists, or say, "How could you worship such a monster?"  However, when confronted by the logical implications of their own theology, Arminians must retreat to believing in, "A God who MYSTERIOUSLY creates beings with free will knowing some will reject him."  Again, when faced with the conclusions that must be drawn from the basis of this view of God and creation, the Arminian must run and hide behind "mystery".

 

Hausam's point is valid. Arminianism is essentially claiming that God can cause an uncaused cause! IF God creates each individual "from nothing" then God Himself is the ultimate cause for every single thing that each individual will ever do.

 

Furthermore, God is also the cause of the make-up, characteristics, and nature of every being that God created from God's own mind. If God creates a being who is "irrational" , then that being will make irrational choices (like choosing eternal damnation rather than eternal life).

 

Hausam continued:

"... if God were the creator of our being or the essence of who we are, as a logically consistent account of creation ex nihilo would affirm, he would also be the creator and cause, at least indirectly, of the actual choices we make. But since these cannot be causally traced back to God, in Arminianism, the essence of who we are that our choices flow from, and thus reveal and express, must also be unable to be traced back to God or his creative activity. Whatever God created ex nihilo when he created human beings, he thus did not create that which constitutes the real essence of our being and character. "

 

This is the point I made above. And finally Hausam writes:

 

"So, we can see that, in Arminian theology, the main implications of the doctrine of creation ex nihilo are negated and the doctrine itself is thus, in effect, relegated to practical unimportance, since the most important part of who we are, that which defines our primary essence, is not created by God, but is self-existent or self-created appropriate for such entities in Arminianism, although Arminians, being less consistent and developed in their theology, usually do not clearly see this and avoid the term because of its obvious clash with more classical theistic aspects of their thinking that they do not want to wholly or explicitly jettison."

 

In other words, Arminians are not comfortable saying that there is something about the individual that is "self-existent" or "eternal" because classical theism reserves these characteristics to God alone.

 

Evangelicals who try to use the "Free Will Defense" claim that God had two alternatives. 

 

1) Either God could create a reality with maximum pleasure, but no pain ... with no free will. 

 

OR

 

2) God could create a reality with pain and suffering, which is a price worth paying for free will.

 

It was J.L. Mackie who challenged this by saying that these are not the only two options available to an omnipotent and benevolent God who is creating "ex nihilo" and therefore, could create any kind of reality (and any kind of being) that is logically possible.  He argued that God could create beings who are truly free and who would be created to be rational enough to choose good.

 

Note that Daniel on this forum, and "teachers" like Roger Olsen (and even greater minds like Plantinga or William Lane Craig), feel that God can "mysteriously" defy the logical challenge given by Hausam, yet they still deny God the logical capacity to create beings who are rational enough to choose good.

 

-Stephen

Edited October 11, 2015 by stephenpurdy

[danielwoods]

Really?  You are asking me to find Biblical verses that teach that God is sovereign over creation. 

 

Yes.  This is a simple task.

 

"Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the whole world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God" (Psalm 90:2).

 

"The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. (Heb 1:3)

 

"LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth! You have set your glory in the heavens" (Psalm 8:1)

"For you, LORD, are the Most High over all the earth; you are exalted far above all gods" (Psalm 97:9).

 

"Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account" (Hebrews 4:13).

 

"The earth is the LORD’s, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it; for he founded it on the seas and established it on the waters" (Psalm 24:1-2).

 

"Yours, LORD, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the majesty and the splendor, for everything in heaven and earth is yours. Yours, LORD, is the kingdom; you are exalted as head over all. Wealth and honor come from you; you are the ruler of all things. In your hands are strength and power to exalt and give strength to all" (1 Chronicles 29:11-12).

 

Note:  Every verse that you can try to find which supposedly claims that God is different than man, refers to God being morally superior to man.  Man is a liar, God is not.  Man does not keep his promises, God DOES keep his promises.  The thoughts of God are above/superior to the thoughts of man.

 

Every verse that differentiates God from man is found within these kinds of contexts; there is no context which refers to God as being a different being in a metaphysical sense.

 

-s

 

Note my CFR was:

You claimed, "The God of the Bible is "transcendent" not in a metaphysical sense, but instead in a the sense that He is sovereign over his creation."

CFR is for your claim above, since you are so smart it should be  a simple task for you.

 

Your reply:

"Really?  You are asking me to find Biblical verses that teach that God is sovereign over creation.

Yes.  This is a simple task."

 

No, actually I agree that God is sovereign over his creation. What you claimed is that God of the Bible is not transcendent in the metaphysical sense. Now, if this were true, you'd think that it would be easy to quote some of the bible and demonstrate your position. Until then it remains simply an assumption on your part. 

 

Your final claim is quite different from the one above. 

 

You said:

"there is no context which refers to God as being a different being in a metaphysical sense."

 

This of course is your opinion based on your interpretation of those verses. I have a different opinion. 

[danielwoods]

Correct.  "heaven and earth" is a hendiadys or merism for every thing which was to be organized from chaos.  You have overlooked the grammar of Gen 1:1-3, as you always do, and thus fail to understand the full sentence and its meaning.  Your incorrect use of an apostrophe in "heaven's" is indicative.  You just didn't pay proper attention in English class.

 

I did see that and thought I should correct my spelling error. I decided not to. 

 

As for me over looking the grammar. No, actually I agree with those scholars that you disagree with... remember the fallacy I mentioned? 

 

Citing rabbis from Chabad (ultra-orthodox) on this is like citing fundamentalist polygamous Mormons:  You're not likely to get an unbiased and objective view based on scholarship.  The same applies to citing primarily views from Hebrew grammarians of a century ago.

 

Of course, since you can't read the Hebrew text, this makes no sense to you.  Your theological preconceptions override any other consideration.

 

Creatio ex nihilo is a late Jewish-Christian-Muslim dogma, and it is not biblical.  As usual, you have it backward.

 

Who has an unbiased and objective view? 

[danielwoods]

However, when confronted by the logical implications of their own theology, Arminians must retreat to believing in, "A God who MYSTERIOUSLY creates beings with free will knowing some will reject him."  Again, when faced with the conclusions that must be drawn from the basis of this view of God and creation, the Arminian must run and hide behind "mystery".

 

This characterization is false. Arminians don't retreat or hide anymore than the LDS or Catholics hide from the understanding that ultimately we are unable to explain every detail of God and his nature and his creation. When we reach these limits, we all refer to them as mysteries. To attack another group's faith in mysteries is really rather shallow, to use your phrase, because it's almost as though one has forgotten all the mysteries that they believe and are committed to. 

 

 

 

Furthermore, God is also the cause of the make-up, characteristics, and nature of every being that God created from God's own mind. If God creates a being who is "irrational" , then that being will make irrational choices (like choosing eternal damnation rather than eternal life).

Until you can demonstrate that "rational" equals morally righteous, your point is irrelevant. Many would argue that living selflessly for others is completely irrational, yet it is also a morally righteous thing to do. 

 

 

It was J.L. Mackie who challenged this by saying that these are not the only two options available to an omnipotent and benevolent God who is creating "ex nihilo" and therefore, could create any kind of reality (and any kind of being) that is logically possible.  He argued that God could create beings who are truly free and who would be created to be rational enough to choose good.

 

Note that Daniel on this forum, and "teachers" like Roger Olsen (and even greater minds like Plantinga or William Lane Craig), feel that God can "mysteriously" defy the logical challenge given by Hausam, yet they still deny God the logical capacity to create beings who are rational enough to choose good.

 

-Stephen

Your point is undermined by assuming that rational means morally good. 

 

As W.L. Craig pointed out, and I quoted him a while ago, that he is creating morally good people in Heaven, using this world as a necessary step to the next. He argues that given free will, this is a necessary step. In other words, instead of your hypothetical scenario of simply not creating people who God knows will choose evil, he allows them to self select Heaven for themselves.

[Robert F. Smith]

...................................................................................................

 

............................................................... God COULD HAVE chosen to create ONLY the individuals that God knew would make "good decisions", while refraining from creating those who He knew would make "poor decisions".  This would not have taken away the "choice" of any of those who were created.

Correct.  An omniportent and omnibeneficient God can only create good.  Thus, evil (including Satan) cannot exist.  It is a contradiction in terms to even posit such a God.  Indeed, everything created from nothing can do only the will of God, and all actions are mechanistically predetermined.

 

Armenians can't defeat the logic presented by Hausam, and they are also still haunted by the fact that God purposefully created individuals that He knew were destined for eternal misery/damnation, but decided to create those individuals anyways.

I think you meant "Arminians," as believers in free will -- as for Methodists, Free Will Baptists, etc.  Of course, Calvinists are at least consistent in their belief that one cannot choose to be saved.  It is completely the sovereignty of God as the Uncaused and Sole Creator of the Universe from nothing.  This is the sad and anti-biblical heritage of Hellenistic philosophy, and one of the mainstays of the Great Apostasy.

Edited October 12, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

 

This characterization is false. Arminians don't retreat or hide anymore than the LDS or Catholics hide from the understanding that ultimately we are unable to explain every detail of God and his nature and his creation. When we reach these limits, we all refer to them as mysteries. To attack another group's faith in mysteries is really rather shallow, to use your phrase, because it's almost as though one has forgotten all the mysteries that they believe and are committed to. 

  ............................................................................   

Actually, Stephen is correct.  While you are wrong to include "the LDS" in the above grouping.

 

It is quite true that Roman Catholics and others within normative Christianity hide from the logical disconnect and paradox by declaring it all a "mystery."  And that is really all they can do.  However, it is a cop out.  Particularly when the premises are false and anti-biblical.

 

At least the late Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel fame was willing to openly admit that there was no way of logically combining free will with the absolute sovereignty of God.  He was a good Calvinist and just could not explain the paradox.  Now, since he is on the other side, he can fully understand his error.  And he used to enjoy so much tangling with Mormon missionaries.

Edited October 12, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Vance]

As W.L. Craig pointed out, and I quoted him a while ago, that he is creating morally good people in Heaven, using this world as a necessary step to the next. He argues that given free will, this is a necessary step. In other words, instead of your hypothetical scenario of simply not creating people who God knows will choose evil, he allows them to self select Heaven for themselves.

Creation ex nihilo precludes free will.  A logical fact that continues to elude you.

[danielwoods]

Actually, Stephen is correct.  While you are wrong to include "the LDS" in the above grouping.

 

It is quite true that Roman Catholics and others within normative Christianity hide from the logical disconnect and paradox by declaring it all a "mystery."  And that is really all they can do.  However, it is a cop out.  Particularly when the premises are false and anti-biblical.

 

At least the late Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel fame was willing to openly admit that there was no way of logically combining free will with the absolute sovereignty of God.  He was a good Calvinist and just could not explain the paradox.  Now, since he is on the other side, he can fully understand his error.  And he used to enjoy so much tangling with Mormon missionaries.

 

I have been around this board long enough to have read people who are faithful LDS reference their unexplained mysteries. It is in no sense a cop-out, rather it is an acknowledgement of our own limited abilities in understanding God and universe that is not completely knowable to us in this state. 

 

I'm not surprised that Chuck Smith, as a Calvinist, would say that. 

[saemo]

Actually, Stephen is correct. While you are wrong to include "the LDS" in the above grouping.

It is quite true that Roman Catholics and others within normative Christianity hide from the logical disconnect and paradox by declaring it all a "mystery." And that is really all they can do. However, it is a cop out. Particularly when the premises are false and anti-biblical.

At least the late Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel fame was willing to openly admit that there was no way of logically combining free will with the absolute sovereignty of God. He was a good Calvinist and just could not explain the paradox. Now, since he is on the other side, he can fully understand his error. And he used to enjoy so much tangling with Mormon missionaries.

Actually, it is a matter of faith, but not blind faith.

The Fall, is evidence to us that we have free will. The Bible describes Jesus as prepared before creation, as our Salvation. So all there, in the basic Christain narrative is free will and God's omniscience. The premise is neither false or un-Biblical. The theological use of the word mystery, means God has revealed truth, that we seek to understand. Our not understanding the ways of God, is not a surprise or unexpected, but it is Biblical that we cannot understand God.

At any rate, I have never found a satisfactory explanation for why God allows suffering, in any religion including LDS. So, I don't know what the point of this whole thread is. Jesus suffered greatly for us, and died. Obviously, God could choose any number of means for out salvation. But it was suffering and death, which has profound meaning when discussing human suffering. But it is a mystery, in the theological use of the word, as to the ways of God and why God chooses one thing over another. In short, I don't try to second guess God, but have faith that He is all in all. If I did not, I would be an atheist.

Ex nihilo makes much more sense to me, if you believe in God, and believe God is omnipotent. There is no logical explanation for a "thing" to exist outside of an omnipotent God.

Edited October 12, 2015 by saemo

[Robert F. Smith]

Actually, it is a matter of faith, but not blind faith.

The Fall, is evidence to us that we have free will. .....................................................

Mormons agree that we all have free will (even if some do not choose to exercise it), and that we can be held responsible for our decisions.  However, Mormons only think that makes sense if all of us and the matter in the universe are coeternal with God.  Omnipotence cancels out that possibility, and is an overwhelming feature of the Great Apostasy -- in which Hellenistic philosophy replaces biblical religion.

 

..............................

Ex nihilo makes much more sense to me, if you believe in God, and believe God is omnipotent. ....................................................

Correct.  Omnipotence goes along with ex nihilo creation.  That is required by Greek philosophy.  Neither one can be found in the Bible.

[mfbukowski]

 There is no logical explanation for a "thing" to exist outside of an omnipotent God.

Well it seems all the scientists in the world would disagree, but what do they know?

[stephenpurdy]

Note my CFR was:

 

No, actually I agree that God is sovereign over his creation. What you claimed is that God of the Bible is not transcendent in the metaphysical sense. Now, if this were true, you'd think that it would be easy to quote some of the bible and demonstrate your position. Until then it remains simply an assumption on your part. 

 

You said:

"there is no context which refers to God as being a different being in a metaphysical sense."

 

This of course is your opinion based on your interpretation of those verses. I have a different opinion. 

 

There is no verse in the Bible that says what you claim.  You cannot ask for a CFR, when I am saying that none exist.

 

Stephen previously wrote:  Every verse that you can try to find which supposedly claims that God is different than man, refers to God being morally superior to man.  Man is a liar, God is not.  Man does not keep his promises, God DOES keep his promises.  The thoughts of God are above/superior to the thoughts of man.

 

I'm sorry... Did you point to a verse in the Bible which shows that God is different from man in a metaphysical sense?

 

....

 

I didn't think so.  

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

 

Until you can demonstrate that "rational" equals morally righteous, your point is irrelevant. Many would argue that living selflessly for others is completely irrational, yet it is also a morally righteous thing to do. 

 

 

Your point is undermined by assuming that rational means morally good. 

 

 

 

For starters, many philosophers HAVE argued that rationality leads to morality.  That is why I chose that particular characteristic as an example.  After all, if the choice truly is everlasting happiness versus eternal damnation, only an irrational being would choose the latter.  However, rationality is, after all, just an example.

 

In Ex Nihilo creation, EVERY SINGLE ASPECT , every characteristic, the essence and nature of a creature is brought entirely into existence from God's own mind.  You can't avoid it.  Nice try though.

 

 

 

As W.L. Craig pointed out, and I quoted him a while ago, that he is creating morally good people in Heaven, using this world as a necessary step to the next. He argues that given free will, this is a necessary step. In other words, instead of your hypothetical scenario of simply not creating people who God knows will choose evil, he allows them to self select Heaven for themselves.

 

But in Ex Nihilo creation, it is NOT a necessary step.  And creating people who "self select Hell" is not necessary at all.  Indeed , it is the cruelest act of creation imaginable.

 

 

- Stephen

Edited October 13, 2015 by stephenpurdy

[danielwoods]

There is no verse in the Bible that says what you claim.  You cannot ask for a CFR, when I am saying that none exist.

 

 

Let me make it plain for you. 

 

You made a claim,  "that God of the Bible is not transcendent in the metaphysical sense."

 

I asked for a CFR to back up your claim. 

 

You appear to have failed to back up your claim. You can take back your claim or back it up. Your choice. 

[mfbukowski]

Let me make it plain for you. 

 

You made a claim,  "that God of the Bible is not transcendent in the metaphysical sense."

 

I asked for a CFR to back up your claim. 

 

You appear to have failed to back up your claim. You can take back your claim or back it up. Your choice. 

Yep, you are right in my humble opinion.

 

Of course I disagree that the God of the bible IS transcendent but clearly the case cannot be decided based on the bible.  You can cite scholars saying that, if you buy their opinions, but that does not appear to be the issue here.

 

Certainly no where in the bible does it say "God is not transcendent".   Of course it does not say he is either.

 

But yes, I think you have a point.  I do not think it is an important point, but I have no dog in this fight.  Technically you are exactly right!

[stephenpurdy]

Let me make it plain for you. 

 

You made a claim,  "that God of the Bible is not transcendent in the metaphysical sense."

 

I asked for a CFR to back up your claim. 

 

You appear to have failed to back up your claim. You can take back your claim or back it up. Your choice. 

 

 

I backed up my claim:

 

Stephen previously wrote:  Every verse that you can try to find which supposedly claims that God is different than man, refers to God being morally superior to man.  Man is a liar, God is not.  Man does not keep his promises, God DOES keep his promises.  The thoughts of God are above/superior to the thoughts of man.

 

If you would like the verses, then I can give them to you:

 

Isaiah 55:9

 

Numbers 23:19

 

Exodus 33:20

 

Again, there are no verses in the Bible that say that God is transcendent in the metaphysical sense.  Certainly, God's power and knowledge and morality and character and wisdom and love and mercy are far above and beyond our own, but that does not make God a different kind of metaphysical being altogether.

 

-Stephen 

Edited October 14, 2015 by stephenpurdy

[Bobbieaware]

I backed up my claim:

Stephen previously wrote: Every verse that you can try to find which supposedly claims that God is different than man, refers to God being morally superior to man. Man is a liar, God is not. Man does not keep his promises, God DOES keep his promises. The thoughts of God are above/superior to the thoughts of man.

If you would like the verses, then I can give them to you:

Isaiah 55:9

Numbers 23:19

Exodus 33:20

Again, there are no verses in the Bible that say that God is transcendent in the metaphysical sense. Certainly, God's power and knowledge and morality and character and wisdom and love and mercy are far above and beyond our own, but that does not make God a different kind of metaphysical being altogether.

-Stephen

The problem with the thinking of those who oppose us is that Jesus Christ proves the Eternal God can be both a divine spiritual being and a male human being with a tangible body of flesh and bone at the same time. So if the personage of the Father ever chooses to take upon himself a tangible body of flesh and bone, so that he might be more like the personage of the Son (of course, we know he already has a glorified spiritual body), it wouldn't detract from his divinity, holiness or perfection even one iota because we know the personage of the Son, although tabernacled in a human body, possesses all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. So Christ proves there is nothing at all spiritually deleterious nor incapacitating for God to have a body. But in spite of these unassailable facts, if our critics continue insist that it would be spiritually incapacitating for God the Father to have a body, it would interesting to know why? For if a body does not at all detract from the divinity of the Son, why would possessimg a body detract from or diminish the divinity of the Father?

Edited October 14, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Robert F. Smith]

Let me make it plain for you. 

 

You made a claim,  "that God of the Bible is not transcendent in the metaphysical sense."

 

I asked for a CFR to back up your claim. 

 

You appear to have failed to back up your claim. You can take back your claim or back it up. Your choice. 

An excellent non-Mormon site which defines many of the terms you are unfamiliar with is at http://www.apttoteach.org/Theology/God%20and%20Angels/pdf/302_Imm_and_Transcendence.pdf , including a short paper there, Blair Reynolds, "The Doctrine of God," beginning on page 5, in which he points out that the God you believe in is unbiblical.

 

As for the immanent (rather than transcendent) God of the Bible, you need to consider what it means for God to be walking and talking to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, or God and two angels coming to Abraham on the Plain of Mamre, sitting down and eating a sumptuous meal with him and bargaining with him (Gen 18), God's personal, direct revelation to Moses, God's very personal conversation with Jonah the Prophet,  etc.  A transcendent God could do none of that.

[danielwoods]

I backed up my claim:

 

Stephen previously wrote:  Every verse that you can try to find which supposedly claims that God is different than man, refers to God being morally superior to man.  Man is a liar, God is not.  Man does not keep his promises, God DOES keep his promises.  The thoughts of God are above/superior to the thoughts of man.

 

If you would like the verses, then I can give them to you:

 

Isaiah 55:9

 

Numbers 23:19

 

Exodus 33:20

 

Again, there are no verses in the Bible that say that God is transcendent in the metaphysical sense.  Certainly, God's power and knowledge and morality and character and wisdom and love and mercy are far above and beyond our own, but that does not make God a different kind of metaphysical being altogether.

 

-Stephen 

 

You made a claim,  "that God of the Bible is not transcendent in the metaphysical sense."

 

Your response is, "there are no verses in the Bible that say that God is transcendent in the metaphysical sense."

 

These two statements are completely different claims. You think you've backed up your first claim. The problem is you can't test who or what the "God of the bible" is. You made a claim that is a claim of faith, as if it were a testable fact. It is your faith that interprets the bible based on your view and those that you trust. That's why it's called faith, because you trust that point of view. Which simply means, you can't make a claim such as the "God of the Bible is not transcendent in the metaphysical sense." as if it were a fact we could test, because it's faith. Your faith in particular. 

 

If you are interested in my faith, I can quote many verses that I interpret as saying that God is transcendent in the metaphysical sense, which is also what the early church taught as well. 

[danielwoods]

An excellent non-Mormon site which defines many of the terms you are unfamiliar with is at http://www.apttoteach.org/Theology/God%20and%20Angels/pdf/302_Imm_and_Transcendence.pdf , including a short paper there, Blair Reynolds, "The Doctrine of God," beginning on page 5, in which he points out that the God you believe in is unbiblical.

 

As for the immanent (rather than transcendent) God of the Bible, you need to consider what it means for God to be walking and talking to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, or God and two angels coming to Abraham on the Plain of Mamre, sitting down and eating a sumptuous meal with him and bargaining with him (Gen 18), God's personal, direct revelation to Moses, God's very personal conversation with Jonah the Prophet,  etc.  A transcendent God could do none of that.

 

Shall we CFR Your claim in bold? Or do you wish to rephrase it and say it's something you believe? Because I'm positive you're unable to demonstrate God's inability to do something. 

[mfbukowski]

Evangelicals typically change the usual philosophical definitions of "transcendent" and "immanent" to suit their purposes.

"Immanent" usually means "within time and space"- and having a location. Evangelicals use the term meaning that God is 'in the universe" in the sense of everywhere in the universe at once. Wikipedia does a good job describing the ambiguity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanence

So as usual, the problem boils down to different interpretations of words created by each group to prove they are right.

The usual stuff.

The best way to handle the problem is to explain what is meant in each context.

In Greek philosophy, transcendence refers to a being who has nothing to do with the world- who is in the realm of Forms, beyond caring about humans. But as I said, definitions vary

Edited October 14, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Shall we CFR Your claim in bold? Or do you wish to rephrase it and say it's something you believe? Because I'm positive you're unable to demonstrate God's inability to do something.

Like make a boulder he could not lift?

In my humble opinion, this has degenerated into semantics.

But I think I said that twenty or so pages earlier, so I don't expect it to change anything.

Edited October 14, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

Shall we CFR Your claim in bold? Or do you wish to rephrase it and say it's something you believe? Because I'm positive you're unable to demonstrate God's inability to do something. 

In order to discuss this, one must at least know the meanings of "immanence" and "transcendence."  Moreover, you might at least make the effort to look up the articles and books which I have cited (CFR is a request for sources, which I have given to you repeatedly), which were not written by Mormons.  You would find them very helpful in allaying your confusion on these matters.  All these issues have been widely discussed within normative religious circles for many years, and these are not new concepts.  However, if they are not addressed forthrightly, no progress in the discussion is possible.  Sincerity is required.

[Vance]

You made a claim,  "that God of the Bible is not transcendent in the metaphysical sense."

 

Your response is, "there are no verses in the Bible that say that God is transcendent in the metaphysical sense."

 

These two statements are completely different claims.

You have a point.

 

The first is an expression of opinion.

 

The second is an expression of fact.

 

Your problem is your false doctrine of "sola scriptura".  Since the second one is a statement of fact, then you MUST not believe that God is a transcendent being in a metaphysical sense.  To do so you MUST deny "sola scriptura"!!

 

So, which will it be?

 

If you are interested in my faith, I can quote many verses that I interpret as saying that God is transcendent in the metaphysical sense, which is also what the early church taught as well. 

That is the crux of the issue, isn't it.  You MUST read into those verses something that isn't exactly in them.

 

What makes your interpretation better than ours?  You have no more authority than we do.  You have no more revelation than we do.

 

So why should we give up our beliefs and accept yours?

[danielwoods]

In order to discuss this, one must at least know the meanings of "immanence" and "transcendence."  Moreover, you might at least make the effort to look up the articles and books which I have cited (CFR is a request for sources, which I have given to you repeatedly), which were not written by Mormons.  You would find them very helpful in allaying your confusion on these matters.  All these issues have been widely discussed within normative religious circles for many years, and these are not new concepts.  However, if they are not addressed forthrightly, no progress in the discussion is possible.  Sincerity is required.

 

When one makes a claim about God (such as God can't do this or that), but cannot acknowledge that it isn't a claim based on facts, but one's faith. Any discussion is simply like spinning ones wheels in the parking lot. 

Edited October 14, 2015 by danielwoods