Triadic Reality (a discussion between oldhermit and Kenisis)
- Thread starter oldhermit
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Yes, you're right. I was not attempting to be that specific. It was just an example. If I had said I have a green 1996 Ford F150 truck and you know what that looks like then you have a clearer picture and the communication is even stronger. Because you know what the color green looks like and you have seen an F150 before, you are better equipped to attach meaning to the words to formulate a more complete picture in your mind.
INCOMMENSURABLES
Things that are incommensurable cannot be measured on the same plain or compared with the same standard of measurement. Any standard of comparison from within our own field of existence will never measure up to the reality of God. Although the heavens declare the glory of God as the Psalmist says, we can never truly understand God through anything learned within the framework of human experience. Human reason that is divorced from revelation can add nothing of value to the revealed text and can tell us nothing about God. Through scripture, God allows us to see, in a limited fashion, some things about his nature, his power, his personality, his presence, his wisdom and his involvement in human affairs. Any concept of God that can be regarded as uncompromised must come from God’s own revelation about Himself. This he has chosen to effect through the conduit of language.
K
I think it might be tricky to determine whether or not, in a given instance, a conclusion of human reason was divorced from revelation or not. God explains things to Job by using something like reasoning, and Job later says he understood, and Is. 1:18 demonstrates that God believes He and humans can reason together.
An observation, not a criticism, is that most Protestant theologians argue for the Bible plus reason as being sufficient. Due to the long-standing nature of this fact in our language, we may need a more precise definition. Surely, you do not mean to disallow the placing of Scriptures side by side to prove a point, and that is considered a form of reasoning in classical logic.
An observation, not a criticism, is that most Protestant theologians argue for the Bible plus reason as being sufficient. Due to the long-standing nature of this fact in our language, we may need a more precise definition. Surely, you do not mean to disallow the placing of Scriptures side by side to prove a point, and that is considered a form of reasoning in classical logic.
THE NATURE OF GOD AND THE INCOMPATIBILITY OF HUMAN INTELLIGENCE
The first thing that we must realize about the nature of God is that we can never sufficiently understand the nature of God. Perhaps the most sobering question which confronts us is not how do we understand the nature of God, but how do we approach the Word of God to understand what God has revealed of himself? For the word of God to have its proper place in connection with the mind of man, it must be given its agential position. We must take everything that God has revealed about himself in scripture and allow the text to superimpose upon our minds a revealed image of his nature. Without the influence of scripture, any concept that one may have of God will always be the sole product of the individual. When one removes one’s self from the inspired text all that remains to fall back on is the uninspired world of human intelligence.
If we are to enter this study in earnest, we must first suspend for the moment everything we feel that we already know about God. Let us not be guilty of bringing anything of our own into this study. Human intelligence, being what it is, has the tendency to insist that scripture agree with long held, deeply rooted, and cherished concepts of God. We must be willing to set aside experiential logic and begin with the word of God allowing scripture to influence and entrain the mind. This means that we may need to change the way we think, the way we speak, the way we read scripture and certainly the way we understand reality. This may challenge many of our ideas about God, which, for some of us, may prove to be very uncomfortable. Nevertheless, the word of God must be allowed to overturn all unrevealed ideologies about the nature of God. Unrevealed ideologies are inherently the product of socialization. As such, it will prove a great hindrance to the development of a biblically constructed theology.
The Limited Nature of Revelation
When I speak of revelation, I am speaking of the Bible as the exclusive writtenrepresentation of the mind of God given to us by the Almighty about himself. What I mean by limited is that God has not revealed everything to us about himself, Deuteronomy 29:29 and 1Corintheans 2:9-10. What he has revealed linguistically is found only within the Bible. Revelation is limited because of the limited capacity of the human mind to comprehend things it cannot envision and because of the inability of human language to explain things of the non-natural world. Revelation about God is very often anthropomorphic. This is because man can only understand that with which he has an experientialframe of reference. In order for God to reveal himself in scripture, he uses human language to present himself to us in terms with which we are all familiar and to which each of us can relate based on our own individual experiences. For example, in his relationship to man God speaks of himself as father, friend, shepherd, master, judge, king, and husband. He speaks of such physical traits as hair, wings, thigh, hand, arm, heart, and bosom. Hespeaks of character traits such as love, knowledge, wisdom, hate, will, anger, mercy, tenderness, and compassion. We are all familiar with these terms and can relate to them based on our own experiences, but only to a limited degree. We can only understand these terms to the degree that each of us experiences them at the personal level. This means that each of us will have developed different levels of understanding about each of these concepts. Regardless of one’s level of understanding of these terms, we can never fully understand them to the degree that they relate to God.
The Struggle of Human Intelligence
In an effort to conceptualize God, man has posed such questions as, where did God come from, how big is God, how long is eternity, or can God create a rock so big that he cannot lift it? These and other such questions attempt to understand God within the confines of time and space.Since man draws upon comparisons to understand things in this world, he quite naturally tries to understand God in the same way. In the absence of revelation, he can do nothing else. Man feels that he must be able to qualify and quantify everything in order to understand and categorize it. The mind of the skeptic may find it difficult to accept the reality of something that cannot be proven empirically. In the struggle of the human mind to explain the nature of God, man has insisted upon measuring God through the process of natural comparisons. Since God stands outside of man’s ability to rationalize, it is impossible to conceptualize God in terms of time and space. Since we have nothing in our experience with which to compare God or eternity, these questions can add nothing to our understanding of God. God cannot be confined to time or space nor defined by any human metric. These are parameters of strictly linear measurements and can tell us nothing of theunseen world.
The first thing that we must realize about the nature of God is that we can never sufficiently understand the nature of God. Perhaps the most sobering question which confronts us is not how do we understand the nature of God, but how do we approach the Word of God to understand what God has revealed of himself? For the word of God to have its proper place in connection with the mind of man, it must be given its agential position. We must take everything that God has revealed about himself in scripture and allow the text to superimpose upon our minds a revealed image of his nature. Without the influence of scripture, any concept that one may have of God will always be the sole product of the individual. When one removes one’s self from the inspired text all that remains to fall back on is the uninspired world of human intelligence.
If we are to enter this study in earnest, we must first suspend for the moment everything we feel that we already know about God. Let us not be guilty of bringing anything of our own into this study. Human intelligence, being what it is, has the tendency to insist that scripture agree with long held, deeply rooted, and cherished concepts of God. We must be willing to set aside experiential logic and begin with the word of God allowing scripture to influence and entrain the mind. This means that we may need to change the way we think, the way we speak, the way we read scripture and certainly the way we understand reality. This may challenge many of our ideas about God, which, for some of us, may prove to be very uncomfortable. Nevertheless, the word of God must be allowed to overturn all unrevealed ideologies about the nature of God. Unrevealed ideologies are inherently the product of socialization. As such, it will prove a great hindrance to the development of a biblically constructed theology.
The Limited Nature of Revelation
When I speak of revelation, I am speaking of the Bible as the exclusive writtenrepresentation of the mind of God given to us by the Almighty about himself. What I mean by limited is that God has not revealed everything to us about himself, Deuteronomy 29:29 and 1Corintheans 2:9-10. What he has revealed linguistically is found only within the Bible. Revelation is limited because of the limited capacity of the human mind to comprehend things it cannot envision and because of the inability of human language to explain things of the non-natural world. Revelation about God is very often anthropomorphic. This is because man can only understand that with which he has an experientialframe of reference. In order for God to reveal himself in scripture, he uses human language to present himself to us in terms with which we are all familiar and to which each of us can relate based on our own individual experiences. For example, in his relationship to man God speaks of himself as father, friend, shepherd, master, judge, king, and husband. He speaks of such physical traits as hair, wings, thigh, hand, arm, heart, and bosom. Hespeaks of character traits such as love, knowledge, wisdom, hate, will, anger, mercy, tenderness, and compassion. We are all familiar with these terms and can relate to them based on our own experiences, but only to a limited degree. We can only understand these terms to the degree that each of us experiences them at the personal level. This means that each of us will have developed different levels of understanding about each of these concepts. Regardless of one’s level of understanding of these terms, we can never fully understand them to the degree that they relate to God.
The Struggle of Human Intelligence
In an effort to conceptualize God, man has posed such questions as, where did God come from, how big is God, how long is eternity, or can God create a rock so big that he cannot lift it? These and other such questions attempt to understand God within the confines of time and space.Since man draws upon comparisons to understand things in this world, he quite naturally tries to understand God in the same way. In the absence of revelation, he can do nothing else. Man feels that he must be able to qualify and quantify everything in order to understand and categorize it. The mind of the skeptic may find it difficult to accept the reality of something that cannot be proven empirically. In the struggle of the human mind to explain the nature of God, man has insisted upon measuring God through the process of natural comparisons. Since God stands outside of man’s ability to rationalize, it is impossible to conceptualize God in terms of time and space. Since we have nothing in our experience with which to compare God or eternity, these questions can add nothing to our understanding of God. God cannot be confined to time or space nor defined by any human metric. These are parameters of strictly linear measurements and can tell us nothing of theunseen world.
K
Defining these limits seems to me to be the key to the whole thing. Any human word God uses, invokes a human response. If that response is valid only to a certain degree, determining the degree of validity has to be part of understanding each word of the text. Just for God to "be" is very different from us to "be", and that's one of our smallest words. Even the word "the" is a real problem, as we cannot meaningfully say "the God", as He is one, but He is also three.
Yes, I think so. The reason God anthropomorphizes himself in scripture is to demonstrate a compassion for man's limited capacity. In this we can have at least some frame of reference (marginal though it is) by which to not merely create a visual image of something that represents some spiritual equivalent of substance, but to understand something of the nature of his character.
Not at all. The words I use are mine. If you can find a term that better describes what I am saying, fine. I am not jealous over the words. The grammar of the text is an entirely different issue. Those words were chosen by inspiration and were chosen for a reason and for effect. Does this answer your question or have I misunderstood your question?
My use of words comes from the same place yours does - individual experience. You have mentioned a couple of times that I am adopting mathematical terms to explain ideas that do not specifically relate to mathematics. I would not know. My mathematical skills are very poor. Terms such as incommensurable, triadic, dyadic, and valence may be used in mathematics but, not exclusively so. You only connect them to mathematics because that is the context in which you are use to seeing them. I do not connect them to mathematics because I am used to seeing them in a completely different context. Regardless of which context is part of our individual experiences, the basic definition of the words do not change.
I am far more concerned with the use of grammar as it is structured in the biblical text than I am of my use of language in the construction of these thoughts.
I am far more concerned with the use of grammar as it is structured in the biblical text than I am of my use of language in the construction of these thoughts.
I hope so.
The Agent/Patient concept of scripture is one introduced by Dr. Strawn. The following is simply my brief explanation of that concept.
The agent patient relationship between scripture and the mind of man defines the nature of the intended influence that scripture is to have upon the mind of the reader. A divinely determined relationship exists between the minds of all men and the biblical text. Even between the non-believer and the biblical context. How man responds to this text will be determined by the position in which man perceives himself within this relationship. As the patient in this relationship man is the one upon whom the text is intended to act. As the patient, man is never permitted to assume the position of control. He is always rendered subject to the will and authority of an agency that is outside of himself. The patient position is the only position man is authorized to occupy in his relationship to the Word of God. As agent, the Word of God assumes the role of control and authority acting upon the mind of the individual. The scripture must be allowed its agential place over human intelligence. Human intelligence must always give over to the intelligence of God. The way man sees reality must always give way to an inspired representation of reality. Scripture must always be allowed to overtake human will. What this means for man in this relationship is that man must always submit himself to the grammatical structure of the text so that his mind can be influenced by the text. When man surrenders himself to the role of patient he is then able to be transformed in his thought, speech and behavior. When we approach scripture, we must not attempt to bring anything of our own intelligence onto the text to bring the Word of God under the control of the human reasoning process. Human intelligence can never be allowed to serve as the starting point for our understanding of scripture.
It has long been a matter of accepted practice to try to define scripture based on our limited understanding of human history. It has also been a matter of practice for the intellectuals to give more credence to how history records the use of the language found in the text than to allow the text itself to define its own use of language. This is certainly a mistake given the fact that scripture is a product of revealed knowledge rather than a human anthology of historical events. For example, it does not matter how the Greeks used the word logos within their culture. We should never be concerned with the historian's opinion on the first century cultural use of this word in secular literature. These things simply have no bearing upon how the Holy Spirit is using this word in John chapter one for example. The Holy Spirit takes human language out of the historical and cultural context and elevates it to reveal the mind of God. When we bring human intelligence to bear upon the language of revelation this serves only to minimize the text and to distort the message. We will never be able to understand what God has revealed of Himself by imposing human intelligence upon the text. Higher criticism has insisted upon using human intelligence as the agent to understand something that is completely outside of man and his familiar world. How absurd is this?
Higher criticism attempts to render the text subordinate to a historical and cultural framework. I cannot imagine why anyone would do this except to undermine or minimize the text. This denies the Word of God its authority over human reasoning and exalts human intelligence over the intelligence of God. It also disregards God as the controlling agent over human history. Scripture must be allowed to explain history. We should never try to use our understanding of history to explain scripture.
The Agent/Patient concept of scripture is one introduced by Dr. Strawn. The following is simply my brief explanation of that concept.
The agent patient relationship between scripture and the mind of man defines the nature of the intended influence that scripture is to have upon the mind of the reader. A divinely determined relationship exists between the minds of all men and the biblical text. Even between the non-believer and the biblical context. How man responds to this text will be determined by the position in which man perceives himself within this relationship. As the patient in this relationship man is the one upon whom the text is intended to act. As the patient, man is never permitted to assume the position of control. He is always rendered subject to the will and authority of an agency that is outside of himself. The patient position is the only position man is authorized to occupy in his relationship to the Word of God. As agent, the Word of God assumes the role of control and authority acting upon the mind of the individual. The scripture must be allowed its agential place over human intelligence. Human intelligence must always give over to the intelligence of God. The way man sees reality must always give way to an inspired representation of reality. Scripture must always be allowed to overtake human will. What this means for man in this relationship is that man must always submit himself to the grammatical structure of the text so that his mind can be influenced by the text. When man surrenders himself to the role of patient he is then able to be transformed in his thought, speech and behavior. When we approach scripture, we must not attempt to bring anything of our own intelligence onto the text to bring the Word of God under the control of the human reasoning process. Human intelligence can never be allowed to serve as the starting point for our understanding of scripture.
It has long been a matter of accepted practice to try to define scripture based on our limited understanding of human history. It has also been a matter of practice for the intellectuals to give more credence to how history records the use of the language found in the text than to allow the text itself to define its own use of language. This is certainly a mistake given the fact that scripture is a product of revealed knowledge rather than a human anthology of historical events. For example, it does not matter how the Greeks used the word logos within their culture. We should never be concerned with the historian's opinion on the first century cultural use of this word in secular literature. These things simply have no bearing upon how the Holy Spirit is using this word in John chapter one for example. The Holy Spirit takes human language out of the historical and cultural context and elevates it to reveal the mind of God. When we bring human intelligence to bear upon the language of revelation this serves only to minimize the text and to distort the message. We will never be able to understand what God has revealed of Himself by imposing human intelligence upon the text. Higher criticism has insisted upon using human intelligence as the agent to understand something that is completely outside of man and his familiar world. How absurd is this?
Higher criticism attempts to render the text subordinate to a historical and cultural framework. I cannot imagine why anyone would do this except to undermine or minimize the text. This denies the Word of God its authority over human reasoning and exalts human intelligence over the intelligence of God. It also disregards God as the controlling agent over human history. Scripture must be allowed to explain history. We should never try to use our understanding of history to explain scripture.