"The Elect Obtained it, the Rest Were Hardened"

[vernecarty]

I may not understand the issue as I am not a theologian.  But isn't the argument this:

Psalm 36:7 says "How priceless is your unfailing love!     Both high and low among men find [a] refuge in the shadow of your wings."  Even though these are the very words of God, we don't surmise that God is a hen or a chicken.  They are words that we can relate to in order to give us a glimps of God's protective care.

Similarly, when we read the word forknowledge, we understand that this is God's word too.  But, do we really interprete this as meaning that God is sitting in a chair planning our lives back in, say, 100,000 BC looking into the future using some divine telescope and saying, "Oh, I see, Dave is going to do this or that"?

Of course not!  God sees every moment of time as the present.  In fact, "past, present, and future" has no meaning in regards to God since it is all the same to Him.  But, this is beyond our ability to relate since we indeed would have to sit in one point in time and use some sort of device or attribute to look into another point in time in the future.

So God uses the word "foreknowlege" in the same way the Psalms uses "shadow of his wing" to use a word or idea that we can understand in order to help describe that which we are not able to fully comprehend.

I know you're not saying that the average reader of the Bible is unable to distinguish a literary device such as a metaphor, from technical and doctrinal terms which are frequently Biblically self-defined...a thought worth developing Dave...
Verne

[outdeep]

I may not understand the issue as I am not a theologian.  But isn't the argument this:

Psalm 36:7 says "How priceless is your unfailing love!     Both high and low among men find [a] refuge in the shadow of your wings."  Even though these are the very words of God, we don't surmise that God is a hen or a chicken.  They are words that we can relate to in order to give us a glimps of God's protective care.

Similarly, when we read the word forknowledge, we understand that this is God's word too.  But, do we really interprete this as meaning that God is sitting in a chair planning our lives back in, say, 100,000 BC looking into the future using some divine telescope and saying, "Oh, I see, Dave is going to do this or that"?

Of course not!  God sees every moment of time as the present.  In fact, "past, present, and future" has no meaning in regards to God since it is all the same to Him.  But, this is beyond our ability to relate since we indeed would have to sit in one point in time and use some sort of device or attribute to look into another point in time in the future.

So God uses the word "foreknowlege" in the same way the Psalms uses "shadow of his wing" to use a word or idea that we can understand in order to help describe that which we are not able to fully comprehend.

I know you not saying that the average reader of the Bible is unable to distinguish a literary device such as a metaphor, from technical and doctrinal terms which are frequently Biblically self-defined...a thought worth developing Dave...
Verne

You are right Verne.  What I said certainly can't be applied in every instances.  I was just taking a shot to see if I understood the question that the discussion was about.

[vernecarty]

I may not understand the issue as I am not a theologian.  But isn't the argument this:

Psalm 36:7 says "How priceless is your unfailing love!     Both high and low among men find [a] refuge in the shadow of your wings."  Even though these are the very words of God, we don't surmise that God is a hen or a chicken.  They are words that we can relate to in order to give us a glimps of God's protective care.

Similarly, when we read the word forknowledge, we understand that this is God's word too.  But, do we really interprete this as meaning that God is sitting in a chair planning our lives back in, say, 100,000 BC looking into the future using some divine telescope and saying, "Oh, I see, Dave is going to do this or that"?

Of course not!  God sees every moment of time as the present.  In fact, "past, present, and future" has no meaning in regards to God since it is all the same to Him.  But, this is beyond our ability to relate since we indeed would have to sit in one point in time and use some sort of device or attribute to look into another point in time in the future.

So God uses the word "foreknowlege" in the same way the Psalms uses "shadow of his wing" to use a word or idea that we can understand in order to help describe that which we are not able to fully comprehend.

I know you not saying that the average reader of the Bible is unable to distinguish a literary device such as a metaphor, from technical and doctrinal terms which are frequently Biblically self-defined...a thought worth developing Dave...
Verne

You are right Verne.  What I said certainly can't be applied in every instances.  I was just taking a shot to see if I understood the question that the discussion was about.

I am glad you did. I hope you continue to discuss it.
For those who have not read it, here is the ontological argument for God's existence as proposed by St Anselm. Archbishop of Canterbury (1033-1109).

[Even a] fool, when he hears of … a being than which nothing greater can be conceived … understands what he hears, and what he understands is in his understanding.… And assuredly that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, cannot exist in the understanding alone. For suppose it exists in the understanding alone: then it can be conceived to exist in reality; which is greater.… Therefore, if that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, exists in the understanding alone, the very being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, is one, than which a greater can be conceived. But obviously this is impossible. Hence, there is no doubt that there exists a being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, and it exists both in the understanding and in reality.

My point was simply that the best possible means for us to know who God is, is found not in philosphical sophistication but by understanding the Scriptures. This is His personal testimony, as it were. Granted that not everything there-in is immediately obvious, to argue that the words the Spirit of God choose amount to nothing more than metaphor and analogy is obscurantism.  We do not need ontology to know who God is. The Scriptures tell us.
Verne

[Oscar]

Verne,

You said:

For a man of your erudition Tom, invoking the ontological argument is most strange. Your reference to what the Mormons believe and teach is even stranger.

I did not in any way refer to the ontological argument. That is an attempt to deduce God's existence that was popularized by Anselm of Canturbury.

What I actually said was:

This is the sort of thing one must do to try to bring a being who's thoughts and ways are frequently incomprehensible to us into harmony with our limited understanding.

The fact is that all ascriptions of time-boundedness to God, who is either timeless or exists in multiple dimensions of time, (or their equivalents), are actually anthropomorphisms.  The Bible speaks of the hand of God, the eyes of God, and so on.  That doesn't really mean God has hands etc..  It is simply an attempt to describe God in terms we can understand by appealing to analogies.

God is omniscient.  In his knowledge, nothing is prior to anything else.  Words that describe his thoughts and acts in terms of time are analogies.  They are not ontologically descriptive.

When I said that such terms are not "ontologically descriptive" I was pointing out that these time referent terms do not actually describe God in his way of perceiving his creation.  Ontology is the branch of metaphysics that deals with being.  

Fact is...we cannot understand how God perceives us, or how he thinks.  Therefore even inspired words can only point out correspondences, ie, analogies.

It must be quite evident to even you that you do not use that line of reasoning when adressing people of faith.
To talk about ontology in the same breath that you talk about Scripture is akin to questioning God's credibility.

1. If you are referring to the Ontological Argument, I didn't use it.  I know you believe in God's ontological existence.  

2. Questioning God's credibility???  What about this: "...for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.  Heb 11:6.

That says that we cannot please God unless we believe that he has ontological existence, or stated another way, that he actually exists.

It is one thing to state your disagreement with a person's understanding of what Scripture is saying.
It is another thing completely to make broad and sweeping general statements about whether Scripure does or does not communicate truth about God that can be understood.

Of course scripture communicates truth about God that can be understood.  Its just that our understanding of God is limited, and therefore must be approached mainly through analogies.

For example, we believe God is "powerful".  However, we have no concept of how powerful, or of the nature of His power.  We have the power to move things, reorganize things and so on...all within certain limits.

God has the power to created a universe!  He "wove" the strands of DNA.  He made the energy loops physicists call "strings" vibrate.  He "wrote" the laws of physics.  On and on.  

What is it like to have God's power, God's wisdom, God's love?  Beats me.  I suspect it beats you too.  We understand these things by analogy with our own experience.  All that means is that we understand in part, know in part.  But we do not have complete understanding.  In describing some aspects of God's being human language simply lacks adequate descriptive terms!  His relationship to time falls into this category.

As a result of this, theological pronouncements that are deductions from assumptions about God's temporality are questionable at best.

l have to leave this debate to others with more time, but I trust someone on the BB will explore it with you.


No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Verne

Isaiah 55:8-9.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

[moonflower2]

You are saying then, that Christ, who is the express image of God, was made into an image that we could see, and not necessarily representing what God would look like to a man?

Moon,

Writing nearly 70 years after Jesus ascended, the apostle John wrote, "No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.  1:17

Jesus was the Word become flesh.  He was fully God, and and fully man.  But the image of God is not his physical form.  It has to do with his nature.

As Jesus said, "God is spirit" Jn. 4:24.

Thomas Maddux

If God is multi-dimensional - 11 dimensions was suggested earlier, then so was Christ, and Christ was viewable as a man.

God is spirit, but spirits are identifiable, are they not? Angels are also spirits as in, "He has made his angels spirits" and they are identifiable. They are given masculine names, which would indicate a gender. It's possible that angels visited humankind in Genesis before the flood and had offspring. Yet they are referred to as "spirits".

Do you then say that angels do not have a form similar to a man? They seem to, yet they were not made this way to express something to man, but they were created for God, not man.

I'd like to think that God is not only a "Veeger" of Star Trek fantasy (Movie 1), but a personal God who gives us the prospect of seeing His face as in Revelation 22:4 - "They shall see His face..."

And earlier it is said, "...great white throne, and "Him" who sat on it, from whose "face" the earth and the heaven fled away." Rev.20:11.

[Joe Sperling]

Moonflower---

What is truly amazing about Jesus Christ being God is how much he limited himself by becoming a man. Imagine if you or I, used to our 3 dimensional life, were to limit ourselves in a 2 dimensional existence? Can you imagine how confined we would feel, having once lived with the dimension of depth, which would now be missing?  Imagine God who lives in 11 or more dimensions confining himself to just 3? And also limiting himself within the 4th dimension of time? Philipians talks about how much the Son of God emptied himself when he became a man--when we look at it in this way it becomes even more amazing.

--Joe

[vernecarty]

Thank you for the clarifications Tom. I see your point(s).
Verne

[Oscar]

Moon,

The 11 dimensions that were discussed in past posts do not describe God.  String Theory, a branch of physics, indicates that our universe has 10 spatial dimensions and one of time.  

The theological significance of this is that God must have have abilities that transcend the limits of such a universe.

As to seeing God, here is a quote from "Systematic Theology" by Wayne Grudem, a Reformed theologian:

"Although Jesus Christ now has a physical body as God-Man, the Father and the Holy Spirit do not, nor did the Son before he was conceived in Mary's womb.  In the Old Testament "theophanies" where God appeared in human form, these human bodies were only temporary appearnaces and did not belong to the person of God."

As to angelic appearances, I think that it is pretty much the same thing.  For example, we are told that Satan is a spirit, yet he, as far as I know, has not been seen since the Eden incident, and then he didn't look like a human.

Angels have appeared in forms so human that we can't tell, (angels unawares), and in forms so shocking that the observer fainted.

But remember, these are all created spirits.  God is eternal and uncreated, ie, not of the same nature as angels.

Thomas Maddux

[Oscar]

Thank you for the clarifications Tom. I see your point(s).
Verne

Since I've got my copy of Grudem's Systematic Theology in front of me, here is something that applies to our discussion:

After listing all the verses about God's mouth, eyes, hand, arm, etc. he says;

"The reason for mentioning this long list is to show that all that we know about God from Scripture comes to us in terms that we understand because they describe events or things common to human experience.  Using a more techinical term, we can say that all that Scripture says about God uses anthropomorphic language-that is, language that speaks of God in human terms.  

Sometimes people have been troubled by the fact that there is anthropomorphic language in Scripture.  But this should not be troubling to us, for, if God  is going to teach us about things we do not know by direct experience, (such as His attributes), he has to teach us in terms of what we do know..."

Interesting what?

Thomas Maddux

[moonflower2]

Moon,

The 11 dimensions that were discussed in past posts do not describe God.  String Theory, a branch of physics, indicates that our universe has 10 spatial dimensions and one of time.  

The theological significance of this is that God must have have abilities that transcend the limits of such a universe.

Does this mean that God must exist in a form other than what we are able to imagine?

As to angelic appearances, I think that it is pretty much the same thing.  For example, we are told that Satan is a spirit, yet he, as far as I know, has not been seen since the Eden incident, and then he didn't look like a human.

Angels have appeared in forms so human that we can't tell, (angels unawares), and in forms so shocking that the observer fainted.

When I've read these passages, I've thought that it was the holiness/brightness of the beings that caused the fainting, as in one of the prophet's admissions of "unclean lips"; that the angels appeared at those specific times and to specific people in their (the angels) true form and holiness.

[Oscar]

Moon,

Regarding your question, "Does this mean that God must exist in a form other than what we are able to imagine?"

I would say first that we are incapable of mentally imaging any dimensionality beyond the three we experience directly.  For example, cosmologists tell us that the universe has no center.  But since we imagine it to be spherical, it seems to us that it would have a center, and we cannot create a mental image of what it would look like if seen from outside it.

All our experience of existence involves matter, energy, space and time.  God and the angels all existed before any of these existed.  So what does a being who contains no matter and occupies no space look like?  Or, for that matter, does "look like" even apply?

Look at I Kings 8: 27 for example:  "But will God indeed dwell on the earth?  Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain You, how much less this house which I have built."

The universe cannot contain God.  Since God doesn't need space in which to dwell, his existence must be independent of space.  So this passage means either that God is REALLY big, or that his mode of existence is totally separate from anything we know.

Theologians speak of God "intersecting" his creation.  That is, he is present in it, but does not actually exist in it.  In our experience, that doesn't make sense.  But a spirit is non-corporeal, unlimited by the things that limit us.

In Ephesians 4:10 it tells us that Jesus ascended far above all the heavens "that he might fill all things."  So the divine nature of Jesus shares the divine attribute of omnipresence.  Seems like his spiritual nature is everywhere while his bodily presence is in one place.  Hard to understand, eh?

 Yet there are many passages that imply this, such as where he talks about himself being "in the Father" and the Father being in him, and both being in us in John 14, 15, and 17.

As to the appearance of angels, don't forget the Cherubim and Seraphim, and how they are described.  They are a whole lot weirder than just very bright.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

[moonflower2]

In Ephesians 4:10 it tells us that Jesus ascended far above all the heavens "that he might fill all things."  So the divine nature of Jesus shares the divine attribute of omnipresence.  Seems like his spiritual nature is everywhere while his bodily presence is in one place.  Hard to understand, eh?

Theoretically, no, since Jesus is the expression to us of God. It seems that Jesus will always exist and be viewable to us as a man, ie, the Son of God.

But who then is referred to as the "Ancient of Days" who is sitting on the great white throne in Revelation?

[M2]

Rev 3:5 'He who overcomes shall thus be clothed in white garments; and I will not erase his name from the book of life, and I will confess his name before My Father, and before His angels.'

Verses like this would seem to indicate that the elect could lose it too, unless they overcome.  Any thoughts on the matter??

Marcia

[summer007]

Marcia, When you are more then a conqurer through him who loves you.You can thank Him for always giving you the Victory, and always Triumping in Christ. (by Faith of course) Summer.

[M2]

Marcia, When you are more then a conqurer through him who loves you.You can thank Him for always giving you the Victory, and always Triumping in Christ. (by Faith of course) Summer.

Summer , you are so right about faith and rejoicing in His love.   I guess I am interested in the "theological discussion".  Verses like this seem to validate the works based ministry of our assembly days, and I am interested in how the greater evangelical community views it.  It is possible to be entangled again just because "the bible says so" you know.  This verse came up, as an aside, in a Bible Study discussion yesterday.  So if anyone can give me some insight, I will greatly appreciate it.

God bless,
Marcia