[Mad Dawg]

Thank YOU!

I know this could be maybe just my preoccupation, but let me rant a little here:

One of the reasons I like Aquinas in particular and what somebody called "philosophical theology" in general is that sooner or later we have to start looking at what it means to try to talk about God. Aquinas addresses this pretty early in his work.

I guess we also have to think about the relationship between the Bible and talking about God. And I don't think it's a no-brainer.

The Bible is so rich! But the kind of thing it does is, well, hard to nail down. What IS, say, Isaiah 55 (I mean other than beautiful?) What kind of conclusions can be drawn, what argument made from it? And how peculiar, really, to wrest a verse or two from this poem and wave it around and say, "See there?"

There is a kind of inversion that happens in one's thinking about God. We say, "God is a Father, THE Father," and because we know something about fathers, that statement conveys meaning about God. It informs and directs our thought and influences how we read other statements about God.

But somewhere in there, the inversion happens and we begin to realize that our side, so to speak, of the comparisons is derivative and vague and that we learn what Fatherhood is from contemplating God, whose REALITY or (sort of) 'intensity of being' overwhelms the provisional and confused notions we form from our experiences.

Skipping a few steps here, and I ask you to remember it's been decades since I really immersed myself in Calvin, my criticism of Calvin would be that maybe he forgets that God will not be comprehended by our images and language. And consequently he is more rigid in his logical unfolding of his system than the nature of God allows.

That criticism in similar ways ought to apply to any theologian, though I think that what Aquinas is doing is very different from what Calvin is doing.

It is a good thing to try to have answers for the question, "But what do you mean by that?" But it is also critical to remember that thinking and talking about God, while fine things, things He blesses, things which can lead others to know His love, they are derivative and not as important as talking TO (and listening to) God. That while what we think must inform how we conduct our side of the relationship, it is not God as we think Him to be but God as he knows Himself to be who is master and whose mastery we must acknowledge.

ONE of the reasons I unburden myself of this rant is that I THINK that these notions might help us to be more charitable and patient in dealing with one another's conversation about God.

Calvin, a sinner like me and like me not necessarily aware of all his motives, is giving it his best sinful shot. So also Aquinas. So you and so me. And it might be important to consider that maybe not all of us are called to be theologians.

That we think it important enough to justify burning all this energy seems to me to suggest that God is definitely yanking each of our chains. That is merciful of Him and I am happy to see it in you and in me. May we ever be wrong (but ever less so as He draws us in) as He is ever not only right but Righteousness, not only true but Truth.

[Forest Keeper]

There is a kind of inversion that happens in one's thinking about God. We say, "God is a Father, THE Father," and because we know something about fathers, that statement conveys meaning about God. It informs and directs our thought and influences how we read other statements about God.

But somewhere in there, the inversion happens and we begin to realize that our side, so to speak, of the comparisons is derivative and vague and that we learn what Fatherhood is from contemplating God, whose REALITY or (sort of) 'intensity of being' overwhelms the provisional and confused notions we form from our experiences.

Skipping a few steps here, and I ask you to remember it's been decades since I really immersed myself in Calvin, my criticism of Calvin would be that maybe he forgets that God will not be comprehended by our images and language. And consequently he is more rigid in his logical unfolding of his system than the nature of God allows.

If I'm following you then I would fully agree that if we assign our starting point to our own experiences, then we will fail miserably in attempting to comprehend God and His communication to us. If we presuppose that the starting point is God, then we are in much better shape.

As for Calvin, in relative terms while I suppose that the term "rigid" can be a fair adjective, I also see him seeking from the God POV. Charles R. Biggs, an OPC pastor, put together A Summary of Calvin’s Interpretation of Scripture. Here are some excerpts I "hope" are on point :)

I. Calvin’s Hermeneutical Method: Eight Exegetical Principles for Bible Study

...... (2) The Intention of the Author -- The constant search for the intention of the author is characteristic of Calvin’s commentaries. Calvin writes, “Since it is almost the interpreter’s only task to unfold the mind of the writer whom he has undertaken to expound, he misses the mark, or at least strays outside his limits, by the extent to which he leads his students away from the meaning of author [in the Bible].” Calvin underscores the seriousness of Biblical exposition: “It is presumptuous and almost blasphemous to turn the meaning of scripture around without due care, as though it were some game that we were playing” (Calvin, Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians, 1.4).

...... (6) Meaning Beyond the Literal Biblical Wording -- In dealing with the Decalogue, Calvin raises the issue of extending the meaning of a law beyond its literal meaning. He states as a general principle, “The commandments and prohibitions always contain more than is expressed in words.” But he seeks, “to temper this principle” so that it may not lead us “to twist Scripture.” He says, “We must if possible, therefore, find some way to lead us with straight, firm steps to the will of God. We must, I say, inquire how far interpretation ought to overstep the limits of the words themselves so that it may be seen to be…the Lawgiver’s pure and authentic meaning, faithfully rendered…Now I think this would be the best rule, if attention be directed to the reason of the commandment; that is, in each commandment to ponder why it was given to us.” In other words, Calvin looks beyond the literal meaning of a passage to the author’s goal. He uses as an example the fifth commandment, “Honor your father and your mother”: “The purpose of the 5th Commandment is that honor ought to be paid to those to whom God has assigned it. This, then, is the substance of the commandment: that it is right and pleasing to God for us to honor those on whom he has bestowed some excellence; and that he abhors contempt and stubbornness against them” (Institutes, 2.8.8). Calvin seems to follow the example of interpreting the Old Testament like our Lord Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7).

...... (8) The Scope of Focus on the Person and Work of Christ -- Commenting on Jesus’ words, “These are the Scriptures that testify about me” (John 5:39, NIV), Calvin writes, “We ought to read the Scriptures with the express design of finding Christ in them. Whoever shall turn aside from this object, though he may weary himself throughout his whole life in learning, will never attain the knowledge of the truth; for what wisdom can we have without the wisdom of God?” (Calvin’s Comm. John 5:39).

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

ONE of the reasons I unburden myself of this rant is that I THINK that these notions might help us to be more charitable and patient in dealing with one another's conversation about God.

Agreed, and it's a pretty good rant. :)

That we think it important enough to justify burning all this energy seems to me to suggest that God is definitely yanking each of our chains. That is merciful of Him and I am happy to see it in you and in me.

Amen, may we all grow closer to Him.