Materialist Conception of God
Exist~dissolve and Deviant Monk both have have charged Reformed theology of pantheism, the belief that there is no distinction between God and the creation--God is all and all is God. Exist tells us:
If one begins from the foundation of the "eternal decrees of God," I see no way in which one can avoid a thoroughly materialist conception of God’s relationship to creation. Related to this, I object to the way in which the Reformed crowd explicates the "sovereignty" of God. As the language which the Reformed crowd utilizes betrays, the Reformed conception of God’s sovereignty is utterly materialist, for it proceeds from the basis of phenomenological investigation. In other words, my experience (and actually the necessary conclusions of Reformed confessionalism) of Reformed sovereignty-speak is that God’s sovereignty is ultimately expressed through expression in the temporal/causal sphere. However, by doing this, Reformed theology has ultimately (although perhaps not consciously) reduced God’s sovereignty to that which exists—but if this happens, there is no way in which to separate that which is created from the being of God, for the very description of the nature of God is based upon creation. While I will be the first to admit that it is difficult, if not impossible to speak about God’s sovereignty apart from that which is created (for our language is ultimately linked to our createdness), I also do not believe that this admission requires the gross reduction of God’s sovereignty to causality and over-power which I understand Reformed theology to advocate.
It is this fundamental presupposition which leads to the rest of the errors which I see within Reformed theology, whether one is speaking of Christology, atonement, soteriology, etc. They can all be traced back to this fundamental assumption about the nature of God’s relationship to creation, a relationship which I cannot but see as a philosophical pantheism.
The charge of pantheism is not something that we should take lightly. However, according to exist, our concept of the sovereignty of God is a "fundamental assumption." He tells us that the Reformed explication of God's relationship to creation is not a conclusion of Sola Scriptura, but the opposite--a presupposition. I cannot agree with such a claim. The Reformed "sovereignty-speak" is entirely derived from claims of the Biblical authors, some within quotes of "Thus says the LORD." I give an abbreviated list of examples (all NKJV):
12 "And now, Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you, but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all His ways and to love Him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, 13 and to keep the commandments of the Lord and His statutes which I command you today for your good? 14 Indeed heaven and the highest heavens belong to the Lord your God, also the earth with all that is in it. 15 The Lord delighted only in your fathers, to love them; and He chose their descendants after them, you above all peoples, as it is this day. 16 Therefore circumcise the foreskin of your heart, and be stiff-necked no longer. 17 For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality nor takes a bribe. 18 He administers justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the stranger, giving him food and clothing. 19 Therefore love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. 20 You shall fear the Lord your God; you shall serve Him, and to Him you shall hold fast, and take oaths in His name. 21 He is your praise, and He is your God, who has done for you these great and awesome things which your eyes have seen. 22 Your fathers went down to Egypt with seventy persons, and now the Lord your God has made you as the stars of heaven in multitude." Deuteronomy 10:12-22
1 Then Job answered and said: 2 "Truly I know it is so, But how can a man be righteous before God? 3 If one wished to contend with Him, He could not answer Him one time out of a thousand. 4 God is wise in heart and mighty in strength. Who has hardened himself against Him and prospered? 5 He removes the mountains, and they do not know When He overturns them in His anger; 6 He shakes the earth out of its place, And its pillars tremble; 7 He commands the sun, and it does not rise; He seals off the stars; 8 He alone spreads out the heavens, And treads on the waves of the sea; 9 He made the Bear, Orion, and the Pleiades, And the chambers of the south; 10 He does great things past finding out, Yes, wonders without number. 11 If He goes by me, I do not see Him; If He moves past, I do not perceive Him; 12 If He takes away, who can hinder Him? Who can say to Him, 'What are You doing?' 13 God will not withdraw His anger, The allies of the proud lie prostrate beneath Him." Job 9:1-13
1 Then Job answered and said: ... 13 "But He is unique, and who can make Him change? And whatever His soul desires, that He does. 14 For He performs what is appointed for me, And many such things are with Him. 15 Therefore I am terrified at His presence; When I consider this, I am afraid of Him. 16 For God made my heart weak, And the Almighty terrifies me; 17 Because I was not cut off from the presence of darkness, And He did not hide deep darkness from my face." Job 23:1,13-17
1 Then Job answered the Lord and said: 2 "I know that You can do everything, And that no purpose of Yours can be withheld from You." Job 42:1-2
4 For the word of the Lord is right, And all His work is done in truth. 5 He loves righteousness and justice; The earth is full of the goodness of the Lord. 6 By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth. 7 He gathers the waters of the sea together as a heap; F26 He lays up the deep in storehouses. 8 Let all the earth fear the Lord; Let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him. 9 For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast. 10 The Lord brings the counsel of the nations to nothing; He makes the plans of the peoples of no effect. 11 The counsel of the Lord stands forever, The plans of His heart to all generations. Psalm 33:4-11
1 Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, But to Your name give glory, Because of Your mercy, Because of Your truth. 2 Why should the Gentiles say, "So where is their God?" 3 But our God is in heaven; He does whatever He pleases. 4 Their idols are silver and gold, The work of men's hands. Psalm 115:1-4
5 For I know that the Lord is great, And our Lord is above all gods. 6 Whatever the Lord pleases He does, In heaven and in earth, In the seas and in all deep places. 7 He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth; He makes lightning for the rain; He brings the wind out of His treasuries. 8 He destroyed the firstborn of Egypt, Both of man and beast. 9 He sent signs and wonders into the midst of you, O Egypt, Upon Pharaoh and all his servants. 10 He defeated many nations And slew mighty kings-- 11 Sihon king of the Amorites, Og king of Bashan, And all the kingdoms of Canaan-- 12 And gave their land as a heritage, A heritage to Israel His people. 13 Your name, O Lord, endures forever, Your fame, O Lord, throughout all generations. 14 For the Lord will judge His people, And He will have compassion on His servants. Psalm 135:5-14
11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also He has put eternity in their hearts, except that no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end. 12 I know that nothing is better for them than to rejoice, and to do good in their lives, 13 and also that every man should eat and drink and enjoy the good of all his labor--it is the gift of God. 14 I know that whatever God does, It shall be forever. Nothing can be added to it, And nothing taken from it. God does it, that men should fear before Him. 15 That which is has already been, And what is to be has already been; And God requires an account of what is past. Ecclesiastes 3:11-15
24 The Lord of hosts has sworn, saying, "Surely, as I have thought, so it shall come to pass, And as I have purposed, so it shall stand: 25 That I will break the Assyrian in My land, And on My mountains tread him underfoot. Then his yoke shall be removed from them, And his burden removed from their shoulders. 26 This is the purpose that is purposed against the whole earth, And this is the hand that is stretched out over all the nations. 27 For the Lord of hosts has purposed, And who will annul it? His hand is stretched out, And who will turn it back?" (Note: God is speaking in first-person) Isaiah 14:24-27
5 "To whom will you liken Me, and make Me equal And compare Me, that we should be alike? 6 They lavish gold out of the bag, And weigh silver on the scales; They hire a goldsmith, and he makes it a god; They prostrate themselves, yes, they worship. 7 They bear it on the shoulder, they carry it And set it in its place, and it stands; From its place it shall not move. Though one cries out to it, yet it cannot answer Nor save him out of his trouble. 8 Remember this, and show yourselves men; Recall to mind, O you transgressors. 9 Remember the former things of old, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me, 10 Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, 'My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure,' 11 Calling a bird of prey from the east, The man who executes My counsel, from a far country. Indeed I have spoken it; I will also bring it to pass. I have purposed it; I will also do it. 12 "Listen to Me, you stubborn-hearted, Who are far from righteousness: 13 I bring My righteousness near, it shall not be far off; My salvation shall not linger. And I will place salvation in Zion, For Israel My glory." (Note: God is speaking in first-person) Isaiah 46:1-11
24 So when they heard that, they raised their voice to God with one accord and said: "Lord, You are God, who made heaven and earth and the sea, and all that is in them, 25 who by the mouth of Your servant David have said: 'Why did the nations rage, And the people plot vain things? 26 The kings of the earth took their stand, And the rulers were gathered together Against the Lord and against His Christ.' 27 For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together 28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done. 29 Now, Lord, look on their threats, and grant to Your servants that with all boldness they may speak Your word, 30 by stretching out Your hand to heal, and that signs and wonders may be done through the name of Your holy Servant Jesus." Acts 4:24-30
22 Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, "... 24 God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. 25 Nor is He worshiped with men's hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. 26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings...for in Him we live and move and have our being" Acts 17:22,24-26
20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" 21 Does not the potter have power [gk: exousia] over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? Romans 9:20-21
To God our Savior, Who alone is wise, Be glory and majesty, Dominion and power, Both now and forever. Amen. Jude 25
Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created. Revelation 4:11
Exist tells us that we "reduce God's sovereignty to that which exists." As opposed to what? What else is there for God to rule--Himself? How can God be sovereign over something that does not exist? Even if it does not materially exist, and is a mere thought of God, it still exists in a non-material way and is a creation of sort subject to God's authority. Exist goes on to say, "I will be the first to admit that it is difficult, if not impossible, to speak about God’s sovereignty apart from that which is created." Then where is the argument? How are we to speak of God's rule and reign over all of creation (the meaning of sovereign), if doing so only reduces his sovereignty to that which exists? Do not the verses quoted above, some even attributed as direct citations of God, relate God's sovereignty to that which is created? It seems to be that Moses, David, Solomon, Isaiah, Job, John, and Paul all are guilty of the same charge of pantheism. Even if you totally deny the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, which exist does not, we have at minimum an expression of what the human authors thought of God's sovereignty.
The definition of sovereign concerns power, right, and authority. In personal correspondence, exist stated that he would rather not use the term because it had been hijacked by the Reformed crowd. However, do not the above passages demonstrate that God rules and reigns over his creation? In fact, does not the term sovereign imply a relationship between ruler and subject, even if it is between a person and himself as some new-agers would say?
They may respond to my answer in this manner: The way that the Reformed explain God's will practically restricts God to doing what He wills--thereby defining His will and actions by what comes to pass in time and space. How then do you differentiate that which is necessarily God and that which is creation?
Let me begin with an illustration: When a playwright writes a play, he is sovereign over it. By his pen he determines all the qualities of the play, he develops the characters, he dictates the events through the plot, and determines an end. If we were to look at that play, we would gain some insight into the personality and attributes of the playwright, such as style or intelligence. We may also be able to determine a theme or moral to this play. However it does not follow the play is the playwright. Although, by his pen, he determined the entire course of events for that play, that play does not define or limit him.
The relationship between God and his creation is as a the relationship between the playwright and his play--even to a greater extent. If God has determined in eternity what would happen within His creation in time and brought those plans to fruition, it is a huge logical fallacy to conclude that God is the creation. The sovereignty of God is not something merely "expressed." It has far greater implications than that. God's sovereignty is something that necessarily is by the very nature of his being. We experience it in the spatial/temporal sphere, but it is not limited to that realm. All that and who exist belong to God and are subject to his authority--this is Paul's inescapable point in Romans 9.
How are we to tell that which created from that which is God? Any material object, created being (other the man Jesus), event in time is not God, although his "pen" has brought them pass. God himself is completely unobservable and invisible, hence the necessity of revelation both through his word and by his Son. God is not the god of pantheism, totally imminent and not at all transcendent. God is not the god of deism, totally transcendent and not at all immanent. God is both transcendent--above, beyond, and totally distinct from the creation--and immanent--working behind and in all the affairs, events, things, and beings in creation to bring his purposes of creation to fruition.
However, in humility, we must admit the difficulties of explicating the actions of an eternal God within a creation in bondage to time. We limited in our expressions to temporal and spatial terms--and there are many aspects of God that we can neither know nor express because they are beyond comprehension, nor have they been revealed to us. On the other hand, what God has revealed to us by his words and his Word, we can claim as truth and trust the message of them to be true.
4 comments:
Excellent post Brent, I agree 100%. And I agree with Exist on this point whole heartedly.
“… it is difficult, if not impossible, to speak about God’s sovereignty apart from that which is created.”
The degree to which we can describe God’s sovereignty is limited to the amount of it which is perceptible to us. Much like the visible spectrum of light, God has chosen to reveal to us only a portion of his character, and we may make true statements about that portion (or spectrum) to which we were exposed. The error that I think Exist makes is that he assumes that by necessity, we reformed folk deny that God has character and will that lies outside of our spectrum, based on the fact that we only refer to him using traits that are found therein. My position is that we do not speak of God outside of how he has revealed himself to us because any statement about an item that lies outside of our spectrum would by necessity be a presumption about something we are not privy to and thus could be potentially blasphemous.
brent--
However, according to exist, our concept of the sovereignty of God is a "fundamental assumption." He tells us that the Reformed explication of God's relationship to creation is not a conclusion of Sola Scriptura, but the opposite--a presupposition. I cannot agree with such a claim. The Reformed "sovereignty-speak" is entirely derived from claims of the Biblical authors, some within quotes of "Thus says the LORD." I give an abbreviated list of examples (all NKJV):
But Brent, this comes back to the issue of interpretation, as always. I agree that all these verses describe, in some way or another, the author's conceptions of the sovereignty of God. But this does not in and of itself establish the Reformed conception of sovereignty. One must epistemologically adjudicate the way in which this sovereigty-speak is going to be taken. If one assumes that human language is capable of propositionally communicating the nature of the divine being, then I see how your conclusion comes into being. However, for those of us who disavow the potential of propositional language in speaking of the divine, such is hardly a necessary conclusion, even if the very same texts are under consideration.
Exist tells us that we "reduce God's sovereignty to that which exists." As opposed to what? What else is there for God to rule--Himself? How can God be sovereign over something that does not exist?
If this is your answer, you have proven my contention that the Reformed conception of divine sovereignty is ultimately materialist.
Exist goes on to say, "I will be the first to admit that it is difficult, if not impossible, to speak about God’s sovereignty apart from that which is created." Then where is the argument? How are we to speak of God's rule and reign over all of creation (the meaning of sovereign), if doing so only reduces his sovereignty to that which exists?
My point is that because such is improbable or impossible, we should avoid propositionalizing about it. That has been my contention from the start.
Do not the verses quoted above, some even attributed as direct citations of God, relate God's sovereignty to that which is created? It seems to be that Moses, David, Solomon, Isaiah, Job, John, and Paul all are guilty of the same charge of pantheism. Even if you totally deny the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, which exist does not, we have at minimum an expression of what the human authors thought of God's sovereignty.
As I said above, these passages do indeed speak to the author's understanding of God's sovereignty in relation to that which is created. That is not the argument, precisely, however. My contention is that because our language compels us to speak of God's divine nature in this way (through material categories), we should suspend the assumptions that these same categories are propositionally referential to divine nature en toto.
The definition of sovereign concerns power, right, and authority.
But in what way are we going to adjudicate the meanings of these characteristics? Is divine "power" reducible to causality? From whence does divine "right" derive? Against which standard is God attributed "rights" as opposed to the suspension of hte same? What is the nature of this authority? You see, you continue to throw out these words that you assume have inherent meanings to them. However, when we get to actually holding these meanings up to the divine nature, many of them--if taken propositionally (as you would have me take them)--are actually quite absurd.
However, do not the above passages demonstrate that God rules and reigns over his creation?
What is the nature of this "rule and reign?" Simply attributing these characteristics to the Godhead hardly describe or elucidate the actual nature of this rule and reign.
In fact, does not the term sovereign imply a relationship between ruler and subject, even if it is between a person and himself as some new-agers would say?
Potentially, but the word itself does not provide a definition of the intrisic meaning of this word (if an intrinsic meaning exists).
Let me begin with an illustration: When a playwright writes a play, he is sovereign over it. By his pen he determines all the qualities of the play, he develops the characters, he dictates the events through the plot, and determines an end. If we were to look at that play, we would gain some insight into the personality and attributes of the playwright, such as style or intelligence. We may also be able to determine a theme or moral to this play. However it does not follow the play is the playwright. Although, by his pen, he determined the entire course of events for that play, that play does not define or limit him.
The part you are missing--and which is precisely the basis for my critique of Reformed theology--is that God's relationship to creation (within Reformed theology's conception of it) is nothing like that of a playwright to a play. As I have asserted many times to you in other places, the issue that makes this analogy inapplicable is the supposition of the so-called "divine decrees" of God. THese are what separate the God of Reformed theology from the playwright, for the doctrine of eternal decrees posits the existence of all things within the eternity of the will of God. As God's will is essential with God's being, that which is eternally concomitant within God's will is also eternally essential with the divine being. The playwright's act of writing is truly a creative act, for he is bringing into existence that which did not exist before. With the eternal decrees, however, no such act of creation exists. Rather, as the terminal actuality of all things (exhaustively) exists in concomitant relationship to God's eternal will, no such act of creation ex nihilo is possible.
If God has determined in eternity what would happen within His creation in time and brought those plans to fruition, it is a huge logical fallacy to conclude that God is the creation.
Not at all, for you language betrays your presuppositions. You wish to speak of the "eternal decrees" of God, yet your language denies it, for you speak of "determined" (past tense) and "brought to fruition" (also past tense, with an indication that something has gone from one state to another through change). However, if the eternal decrees are true, there is no meaningful way in which to speak of "determination" and "bringing to fruition," for the objects of determinism and fruition eternally and terminally exist within the eternal will of God.
God's sovereignty is something that necessarily is by the very nature of his being.
Earlier, you asked "How can God be sovereign over something that does not exist?" If this is true, and "God's sovereignty is something that necessarily is by the very nature of his being," then you have fundamentally asserted that creation is necessary to the being of God. Hence, my charge of pantheism.
How are we to tell that which created from that which is God?
If one affirms the notion of "eternal decrees of God," there is no meaningful way in which to do so.
God is not the god of pantheism, totally imminent and not at all transcendent. God is not the god of deism, totally transcendent and not at all immanent. God is both transcendent--above, beyond, and totally distinct from the creation--and immanent--working behind and in all the affairs, events, things, and beings in creation to bring his purposes of creation to fruition.
I do not disagree. However, this very claim contradicts the very tenants of Reformed theology which I have criticized.
exist dissolve--
...you have proven my contention that the Reformed conception of divine sovereignty is ultimately materialist.
Earlier, you asked "How can God be sovereign over something that does not exist?" If this is true, and "God's sovereignty is something that necessarily is by the very nature of his being," then you have fundamentally asserted that creation is necessary to the being of God. Hence, my charge of pantheism.
Exist, you made an assumption due to my lack of clarity and a point I failed to mention. Sovereignty describes aspects of God’s relationship to creation. Its implications include the freedom of God to do as he pleases in or with it, or hypothetically, not to create it at all. To say that sovereignty must mean that creation is necessary is to pigeonhole the Reformed into a position it does no hold. Also, that is not a necessary logical conclusion of sovereignty.
My point is that because [speaking of God’s sovereignty apart from creation] is improbable or impossible, we should avoid propositionalizing about it.
However, the biblical authors made the assertions about God’s sovereignty in texts that you hold to some level of authority. That is my point. If you are correct in saying that “we should avoid propositionalizing” about God’s sovereignty, you logically (and likely unintentionally) pass judgment on those texts, for they do something you say we should not do. It is not a mere matter of interpretation; most of the quoted texts above are straightforward in their usage of language. “I have spoken it, I will bring it to pass.” “Whatever the Lord pleases He does, in heaven and in earth, in the seas and all the deep places.” “Does not the potter have the same right over the clay…” One would have to do gymnastics in interpretation to make them mean something it obviously is not saying.
This is what is most frustrating: In your response to part 2, you answered my question “How can Peter accuse them of “twisting” if there were not literal truth being communicated?” You said, “They were twisting the apostolic meaning of Paul's words,” implying there was a concrete, attainable meaning being communicated that could be “twisted” into something else. Then you speak of “matters of interpretation.” I intentionally quoted straightforward passages so that “matters of interpretation” would be a minimal issue.
we should suspend the assumptions that these same categories are propositionally referential to divine nature en toto.
The vast majority of Reformed theologian have never said that sovereignty is the entirety of God’s nature. Perhaps a few idiotic hypercalvinists have. I have said in our correspondence on repeated occasions that we cannot even glimpse into the entirety of God’s nature, much less understand it. However, that does not prevent me from speaking of aspects of God nature when He has revealed them to us. This is nothing more than a caricature of Reformed theology.
But in what way are we going to adjudicate the meanings of these characteristics [of power, right, and authority]? Is divine "power" reducible to causality? From whence does divine "right" derive? Against which standard is God attributed "rights" as opposed to the suspension of hte same? What is the nature of this authority? You see, you continue to throw out these words that you assume have inherent meanings to them. However, when we get to actually holding these meanings up to the divine nature, many of them--if taken propositionally (as you would have me take them)--are actually quite absurd.
Actually I don’t see. If these words carry no contextual meaning then why does your authority use them? Take for example the citation from Romans 9 above, “does not the potter have power over the clay…” This is, of course, a metaphor in which God is represented by the potter. The word exousia, translated power or right, is associated with the freedom of the potter to do as he pleases with the clay—the authority of the potter over the clay. This analogy is then associated to God’s freedom and right, over both Jew and Gentile, to make some vessels of wrath and others vessels of mercy. The point: the word exousia has an attainable meaning from the context which is attributed to the divine nature by Paul himself.
When you read the Scriptures, the answers to your obviously rhetorical and supposedly unanswerable questions are clear. I know you are going to say again, it is a matter of interpretation in which we “adjudicate” the meaning of the words. Words have context, and context brings light to the meaning. I agree that words do not have intrinsic value in and of themselves, but I do hold that God has given us an attainable meaning of the words, and especially to the organization of the words into sentences, he has brought us in Scripture.
I asked, “However, do not the above passages demonstrate that God rules and reigns over his creation?”
You answered: “What is the nature of this ‘rule and reign?’ Simply attributing these characteristics to the Godhead hardly describe or elucidate the actual nature of this rule and reign.”
This response is a change of subject, perhaps by my using of the word demonstrate. It was my intention to ask, “Do not the above passages affirm that God rules and reigns over creation?” I was not concerned with the “nature” of that rule and reign, it was my point to demonstrate that the cited writers attribute the characteristics of sovereignty, as in governance, to God. It was not my intention to explain how God sovereignty operates at this time. My point is that the obvious meanings of the texts above demonstrate that the authors thought of God as a King Who is sovereign over His dominion, Who does as He pleases, Whose decrees will come to pass, Whose words will not be broken, Who accomplishes what He purposes. In contrast, you seem to have a distaste for stating anything absolutely about the nature of divine authority.
THese are what separate the God of Reformed theology from the playwright, for the doctrine of eternal decrees posits the existence of all things within the eternity of the will of God. As God's will is essential with God's being, that which is eternally concomitant within God's will is also eternally essential with the divine being.
First, I know of no Reformed theologian who claims that we have eternally existed in God’s will. The purpose of all things exists in the will of God, but not the things themselves. The purpose or desire and the materialization/realization of that are two different things. I exist because God purposed my existence, but it does not follow that my existence and God’s purpose of my existence are one in the same.
Second, when we speak of God’s will as essential to God’s being, this refers to God’s capacity of volition and choice, not to His actual choices. Hypothetically, could have chosen an entirely different way of doing things. There are other times when we refer to his actual choices as “God’s will”, but the power of volition and actual choices are two different things. Therefore, it does not follow that the contents of His will are essential to God’s being. God’s power to will is essential, God’s actual choices are not.
The playwright's act of writing is truly a creative act, for he is bringing into existence that which did not exist before. With the eternal decrees, however, no such act of creation exists. Rather, as the terminal actuality of all things (exhaustively) exists in concomitant relationship to God's eternal will, no such act of creation ex nihilo is possible.
First, I have already made a distinction between purpose and realization. Second, this line of reasoning [eternal will and ex nihilo are incompatible] requires the existence of time or something like it—something outside of God’s own existence—for there had to be a point in which God did not think of creating or creation for it to not exist—a point, temporal or otherwise, in which creation was not in God’s thoughts. For if it were, it would no longer be ex nihilo.
The playwright analogy still applies in a sense. The performance of the play is not the same as the play on paper or in the thoughts of the playwright. A play is usually written with the intent of being performed. God plans of creation are made with the intention of carrying them out.
Gotta get back to work.
brent--
Exist, you made an assumption due to my lack of clarity and a point I failed to mention. Sovereignty describes aspects of God’s relationship to creation. Its implications include the freedom of God to do as he pleases in or with it, or hypothetically, not to create it at all. To say that sovereignty must mean that creation is necessary is to pigeonhole the Reformed into a position it does no hold. Also, that is not a necessary logical conclusion of sovereignty.
I would agree that it is not a logical conclusion of soverignty en toto, but I cannot but see that it is within the Calvinistic conception of the eternal decrees (to which my argument will ever return). If all things, exhaustively, terminally exist within the will of God from all of eternity, then it is not really accurate to speak of a hypothetical situation in which creation does not occur. Rather, precisely because that which is created exists eternally as the object of God's eternal decrees; and as God's eternal will is eternally essential with the divine being; it is impossible, within the perview of the divine decrees, to speak of freedom or potentiality in regards to God's act of creation, for these things necessarily exist. This is why, ultimately, the notion of eternal decrees must be jettisoned lest Christian theology run aground on the shores of pantheistic thought.
However, the biblical authors made the assertions about God’s sovereignty in texts that you hold to some level of authority. That is my point. If you are correct in saying that “we should avoid propositionalizing” about God’s sovereignty, you logically (and likely unintentionally) pass judgment on those texts, for they do something you say we should not do. It is not a mere matter of interpretation; most of the quoted texts above are straightforward in their usage of language. “I have spoken it, I will bring it to pass.” “Whatever the Lord pleases He does, in heaven and in earth, in the seas and all the deep places.” “Does not the potter have the same right over the clay…” One would have to do gymnastics in interpretation to make them mean something it obviously is not saying.
Except for the fact that these same authors will blatantly contradict a propositional interpretation of their words. The Scriptures are riddled throughout with language about God that conjures images of potentiality (i.e., "I may..."). Open theists follow in the same errors as Calvinism by making these statements propositional, instead of taking these words as what they are--limited human language about the divine mystery of the relationship of God to creation. So, then, I do not pass judgment on the writers, merely because I do not force their words to carry more linguistic weight than is possible, or than which they assumed.
This is what is most frustrating: In your response to part 2, you answered my question “How can Peter accuse them of “twisting” if there were not literal truth being communicated?” You said, “They were twisting the apostolic meaning of Paul's words,” implying there was a concrete, attainable meaning being communicated that could be “twisted” into something else. Then you speak of “matters of interpretation.” I intentionally quoted straightforward passages so that “matters of interpretation” would be a minimal issue.
But which are the "straightforward passages?" This valuation requires a predetermined criterion for identifying perpiscuity of meaning.
The vast majority of Reformed theologian have never said that sovereignty is the entirety of God’s nature. Perhaps a few idiotic hypercalvinists have. I have said in our correspondence on repeated occasions that we cannot even glimpse into the entirety of God’s nature, much less understand it. However, that does not prevent me from speaking of aspects of God nature when He has revealed them to us. This is nothing more than a caricature of Reformed theology.
My entire point is that if one takes that which one interprets from the Scriptures as an impetus for speaking propositionally, one has necessarily asserted, through one's language, that God's nature can be encapsulated by human language (for thus would be required of propositional language). One may argue that one does not aspire to speak propositionally; so be it. However, that would take us into another conversation than the one in which we've been engaging.
Actually I don’t see. If these words carry no contextual meaning then why does your authority use them?
What context? If we are speaking of the eternal God, in what way are we to independently access this context in order to determine if our propositional language is, indeed, contextual?
Re: authority, I simply do not assume that authority must be based upon something objective, absolute, and/or propositionally verifiable/falsifiable.
Take for example the citation from Romans 9 above, “does not the potter have power over the clay…” This is, of course, a metaphor in which God is represented by the potter. The word exousia, translated power or right, is associated with the freedom of the potter to do as he pleases with the clay—the authority of the potter over the clay. This analogy is then associated to God’s freedom and right, over both Jew and Gentile, to make some vessels of wrath and others vessels of mercy. The point: the word exousia has an attainable meaning from the context which is attributed to the divine nature by Paul himself.
But don't you see, even the language you have used here is tricky and misleading when applied to God. From whom does God have freedom? As God is the eternal being from which all things are created and sustained, the concept of freedom (with its corolary, slavery) have no significant meaning when applied to the eternal nature of God. The same critiques could be applied to "right" and "doing as God pleases." These concepts are strange enough when applied propositionally within a commonsense, quasi-libertarian view of the relationship to God and creation. However, when placed within the framework of the divine decrees, they grow to almost monstorous confusion, as I pointed out earlier.
When you read the Scriptures, the answers to your obviously rhetorical and supposedly unanswerable questions are clear. I know you are going to say again, it is a matter of interpretation in which we “adjudicate” the meaning of the words. Words have context, and context brings light to the meaning. I agree that words do not have intrinsic value in and of themselves, but I do hold that God has given us an attainable meaning of the words, and especially to the organization of the words into sentences, he has brought us in Scripture.
This is fine; my point is about propositional language. If you admit these things about the nature of words, then how can you proceed with your defense of interpreting the Scriptures as propositional affirmations of the divine nature?
This response is a change of subject, perhaps by my using of the word demonstrate. It was my intention to ask, “Do not the above passages affirm that God rules and reigns over creation?” I was not concerned with the “nature” of that rule and reign, it was my point to demonstrate that the cited writers attribute the characteristics of sovereignty, as in governance, to God. It was not my intention to explain how God sovereignty operates at this time. My point is that the obvious meanings of the texts above demonstrate that the authors thought of God as a King Who is sovereign over His dominion, Who does as He pleases, Whose decrees will come to pass, Whose words will not be broken, Who accomplishes what He purposes. In contrast, you seem to have a distaste for stating anything absolutely about the nature of divine authority.
YOu say that you are not concerned in the above-example with the nature of "rule and reign," yet in the way you unpack your argument, it is clear that the language you utilize inevitably leads you back to exactly that which you said you are presently discussing. You can't say, "King Who is sovereign over His dominion, Who does as He pleases, Whose decrees will come to pass, Whose words will not be broken"...without attributing meanings to these words.
You are right; I do dislike speaking propositionally about the eternal nature of God.
First, I know of no Reformed theologian who claims that we have eternally existed in God’s will. The purpose of all things exists in the will of God, but not the things themselves. The purpose or desire and the materialization/realization of that are two different things. I exist because God purposed my existence, but it does not follow that my existence and God’s purpose of my existence are one in the same.
I agree that God's purposes for creation, and creation themselves, are not the same. However, this is not what the doctrine of the divine decrees necessitates. The divine decrees state that the ordination--not just the 'purposing'--of all things is intrinsic to the divine nature of God. Moreover, as this ordination is NOT based upon foreknowledge, but is rather based upon the very "act" of ordination, there is really no place in which to even speak of God acting upon a purpose.
Second, when we speak of God’s will as essential to God’s being, this refers to God’s capacity of volition and choice, not to His actual choices. Hypothetically, could have chosen an entirely different way of doing things. There are other times when we refer to his actual choices as “God’s will”, but the power of volition and actual choices are two different things. Therefore, it does not follow that the contents of His will are essential to God’s being. God’s power to will is essential, God’s actual choices are not.
But within the complex of the eternal decrees, there can be no such differentiation between that which God could "hypothetically" do and that which God has done. As the terminal existence of all things (exhaustively) exists eternally within the will of and essentially with the eternal nature of God, to say that God could do "differently" than God has (within the eternal decrees, that is) would be tantamount to saying that God could be hypothetically different than God is. Anselm would be rolling in his grave at this notion.
First, I have already made a distinction between purpose and realization.
And I have shown that not such distinction can exist within the complex of the eternal decrees.
Second, this line of reasoning [eternal will and ex nihilo are incompatible] requires the existence of time or something like it—something outside of God’s own existence—for there had to be a point in which God did not think of creating or creation for it to not exist—a point, temporal or otherwise, in which creation was not in God’s thoughts. For if it were, it would no longer be ex nihilo.
Precisely. This is why the metaphor fails, and why human language cannot speak propositionally about God. If creation is located outside of God's eternal will, we have subjected God to the created. If we locate it eternally within the will of God, we have made creation essential to the being of God. Neither choice is adequate, which is why propositional language will lead us nowhere.
The playwright analogy still applies in a sense. The performance of the play is not the same as the play on paper or in the thoughts of the playwright. A play is usually written with the intent of being performed. God plans of creation are made with the intention of carrying them out.
Within the eternal decrees, no "intention to carry out the plans of God" is possible, for the terminal existence (ordination) of all things exists eternally and essentially with the being of God within God's will.
Post a Comment