Replies

Thank you, t_c, for your statement. It's a very crisp articulation of a point of view.

Kosta, it would be a help if you could point out some particulars where your disagreement, so to speak, comes to a head.

A kind of canon for my theological method (cf Hamlet: If this be madness, yet there is method in it.) is this:

Dawg's First Caveat of Theology:
God is so very different from the 'categories' of the human mind that He isn't even 'one' the way we usually think of 'one'.

Consequently, at every step of the way, we have. so to speak, to look around, pat our pockets, gather our belongings, count our change, and make sure no little one has wandered off, and we have both our gloves.

You, t_c, say:

Since the Fall man has tried to make sense of the world based only on his own senses independent of God and if any conception of God is allowed it is allowed only in the negative sense, that is, in what God is not and not any positive constitutive statements about God.

Just for clarification:
"allowed" by whom, by a "thinker" or what?
I sort of agree. I think there is, as Augustine implied and many have said, "a God-shaped hole in our hearts," so that we, even the Gentiles, can learn much of God by examining, as it were, the edges of the soul's wounds. But our learning will be inadequate because the very faculty of reason is crippled - crippled, though, not paralyzed; less useful, not useless.

The rest of my differences would fall under the head of "falsely exhaustive alternatives". And here -- and I say this not at all as an "I'm right and you're wrong, nanny-nanny boo-boo," kind of thing -- I would say there are many similar problems. Often, from my POV, some Protestants seem to be saying, "It's either A or B," and I want to say, "Whoa, hold on, are those the only choices?"

About freedom and God's control, and freedom as something which sort of goes through stages:
I was once free to marry. I could choose to marry this person, or that person or no person at all. Or I could dither and never make up my mind. If I never chose, it would be like my freedom never matured, or was never used. If I chose wrongly, well, that would be a shame, possibly a disaster (though it seems that nothing is beyond God's redeeming reach). But if I chose rightly and stuck by the choice, then my freedom, which seems to have been lost or "used up" when I got married blossoms into parenthood (or not) and a life of working out what matrimony means.

So somewhere in the middle of what you say I want to suggest that there might be a kind of freedom entrusted to us which is only properly used if we immediately hand it back to God. (and we never do, because we're broken, etc.)

Gosh I hope there is something comprehensibly in that.

One more (alleged) thought:

Also, if man is partly independent of God then God becomes dependent upon man or they become dependent upon each other and upon the universe.

I'm probably misunderstanding you (there's a lot of that going around) but isn't the Incarnation an instance of God mysteriously becoming sort of kind of dependent on mankind and on His creation?

Just as God isn't "one" the way we expected, but includes within his simplicity a society of persons, so maybe omnipotence doesn't work out as we might think it does.

Just sayin' ....

Kosta, it would be a help if you could point out some particulars where your disagreement, so to speak, comes to a head

the_conscience is pulling all this out of a hat. He gives no references, no sources. He opened up with a very orthodox and very apophatic statement, and then proceeded to turn everything upside down.

According to the bible (the way it is written), od gave man wide freedom. He could eat from whichever tree in the Garden, but from one. In other words, God gave man wide, but ultimately limited freedom so that man can make morally right choices with God in mind.

Obviously, God allowed man to sin. The consequences followed but God never stopped offering salvation through repentance. When confronted, Adam blames God for giving the woman and Eve blames the serpent. That is true to this day. To sin was their decision, their free will.

I think the Bible reminds us, whether we believe the story of Genesis or not, that when we abuse our freedom we lose it. That, also, is true to this day.

Yes, we are negating God when we sin. But, that's not our theology, as t_c claims.

A few responses to your post (Mad Dawg) and Kosta’s response to your exhortation.

***Dawg’s First Caveat of Theology:
God is so very different from the ‘categories’ of the human mind that He isn’t even ‘one’ the way we usually think of ‘one’***

If this were the case then God could never had revealed himself. This has never been the position of the Church. God condescends to reveal himself mediated through the categories of the human mind and not that we can utterly know his essence but we certainly are capable of knowing of his nature otherwise we could say nothing about him.

***Just for clarification:
“allowed” by whom, by a “thinker” or what?***

Yes, by a person. Some persons will reject any notion of a god and base all sense experience only upon the universe or their own construct of that universe while others will allow for a god that is only part and parcel of the universe.

***The rest of my differences would fall under the head of “falsely exhaustive alternatives”... I would say there are many similar problems. Often, from my POV, some Protestants seem to be saying, “It’s either A or B,” and I want to say, “Whoa, hold on, are those the only choices?”***

Yes, from a Christian viewpoint those are the only two alternatives; either God is part and parcel of the universe or he is the grounds of the universe.

***About freedom and God’s control, and freedom as something which sort of goes through stages:
I was once free to marry. I could choose to marry this person, or that person or no person at all. Or I could dither and never make up my mind. If I never chose, it would be like my freedom never matured, or was never used. If I chose wrongly, well, that would be a shame, possibly a disaster (though it seems that nothing is beyond God’s redeeming reach). But if I chose rightly and stuck by the choice, then my freedom, which seems to have been lost or “used up” when I got married blossoms into parenthood (or not) and a life of working out what matrimony means.So somewhere in the middle of what you say I want to suggest that there might be a kind of freedom entrusted to us which is only properly used if we immediately hand it back to God. (and we never do, because we’re broken, etc.)***

This the perfect example of what I spelled out in my post is the problem with the Romanist, et al, thinking and that is you start from experience and try to move to revelation instead of starting with revelation and interpret all facts through the prism of revelation.

***I’m probably misunderstanding you (there’s a lot of that going around) but isn’t the Incarnation an instance of God mysteriously becoming sort of kind of dependent on mankind and on His creation?***

No, I would categorize this as the foolishness of God which is wiser than the wisdom of man.

***Just as God isn’t “one” the way we expected, but includes within his simplicity a society of persons,...***

Is it really that unexpected? The ancient philosophers struggled with the problem of the One and the Many and yet through revelation we can see it perfectly realized within God himself.

***so maybe omnipotence doesn’t work out as we might think it does.***

What does the revelation of God say?

***kosta: the_conscience is pulling all this out of a hat. He gives no references, no sources.***

I referenced the Bible. I know you reference the Bible when it fits your purposes and trash it when it hurts but I don’t engage in such incoherent logic. Besides, I wasn’t writing a doctrinal thesis I was trying to make a concise point. Do I really need to quote the Patristics to show they believed in the freedom of man? Since you repeatedly assert it is so why would I need to quote them?

***kosta: But, that’s not our theology, as t_c claims.
***

My post showed the logical conclusions of holding to the freedom of man and it still holds, to your chagrin