|
Post by logic on Apr 6, 2010 9:59:53 GMT -5
I was thinking before I fell asleep last night that man was made/created in God's image & after His likeness (Gen 1:26) Therefore, man was created as a mirror to God; we are to reflect Him. However, sin destroys that image and we are judged for that.
But, my question is as follows: Is God exactly like mankind (key word being exactly) except that He is also same time eternal, immortal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, infinite (infinite in wisdom, knowledge, understanding & capacity)?
What I mean by exactly is that God learns, reacts, feels emotion the same as we do (please, feel free to add what I missed here).
I’ve been thinking this because people accuse me of making God in our image instead of the other way around. Some people say that God has none of our image but we have only some of his image. But, since we are in God's image & likeness, shouldn't we be able to compare God to us & not only us to God? Couldn't we also say that He has most of our image & likeness because it is His to begin with?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Apr 6, 2010 11:39:09 GMT -5
Does that make any sense? Isn't it like saying some of 'B' is 'A' but none of 'A' is 'B'. I think that is incoherent. If we are like God at all then to that same extent God is like us. It just sounds funny that way, as if I said "my dad is just like me." I think if we distinguish between the question of similarity and the question of who came first then we can sort through it. I could actually agree with the quoted statement in this way: God has none of OUR image (in the sense that we did not cause him to have qualities that we FIRST had) but we have some of HIS image (in the sense that we are like him in many important ways). It's really two different definitions for the same type of phrase though, otherwise it would contradict itself.
|
|
|
Post by logic on Apr 6, 2010 11:55:29 GMT -5
I could actually agree with the quoted statement in this way: God has none of OUR image (in the sense that we did not cause him to have qualities that we FIRST had) but we have some of HIS image (in the sense that we are like him in many important ways). It's really two different definitions for the same type of phrase though, otherwise it would contradict itself. I can also agree, but if you take it at face value, there becomes the confusion that we can not know God AT ALL by looking at ourselves, but, we can only know somethings of us by looking at God. By the way, where & how have you been? I've missed you on the forums & wondered how you are doing. I always look forward to your input on the forums.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Apr 7, 2010 18:14:33 GMT -5
By the way, where & how have you been? I've missed you on the forums & wondered how you are doing. I always look forward to your input on the forums. Same here. I decided to take an indefinite break from all the debating. I was getting a bad attitude, getting upset at people including the moderators. I was ashamed because I don't think I had the right motive a lot of the time.
|
|
|
Post by Jessicker on Apr 7, 2010 23:04:17 GMT -5
I for one, have enjoyed both of your inputs on the forum and I am sorry to hear you were having a hard time benjoseph. I just wanted to say that so you both know your posts on the forum are appreciated, even if it doesn't seem like it. Thanks! Also, I think we share attributes in many things, but to a lesser degree. For example, both God and us have the ability to create, but we cannot create things simply by commanding them to exist. We can love, but God is perfect in love, so much so that "God IS love". We have the ability to reason, but we can be flawed or wrong in our reasoning, whereas God is perfect in his reasoning and knowledge. I think we can use these similarities to understand and try to grasp a concept of what those same attributes are in God, but I don't think they're the SAME because they're to a higher degree. I certainly think God feels emotion in much the same way we do. He grieves, He can be happy, He gets angry, etc. How can God learn, though, if He's perfect in wisdom, understanding, and knowledge?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Apr 8, 2010 20:46:34 GMT -5
Thanks for the encouragement Jessicker. I'm glad you enjoy the forum here. Your honest and unbiased questions are refreshing. How can God learn, though, if He's perfect in wisdom, understanding, and knowledge? Here are some Bible verses that imply God is able to discover knew knowledge as he interacts with people. Ge 2:19 ..out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.. Ge 22:12 ..now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me. Deu 8:2 ..the LORD thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness, to humble thee, and to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep his commandments, or no. Deu 13:3 ..the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. 2Chr 32:31 ..God left him, to try him, that he might know all that was in his heart.
|
|
|
Post by Jessicker on Apr 9, 2010 10:58:22 GMT -5
And yet again, there's so much I don't understand...but I guess that's part of the growing process. I trust the Lord will not keep me in the dark.
Thanks for the verses. I'll have to take a more in-depth look at them and what "perfect in knowledge" means.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Apr 11, 2010 22:17:08 GMT -5
And yet again, there's so much I don't understand...but I guess that's part of the growing process. Luke 2:52 ..Jesus increased in wisdom.. I think there is a wrong idea of perfection - a frozen (unchanging) perfection. A lot of people theorize about God being perfect as a frozen, abstract infinity rather than a living, personal, loving being. One man characterized this as an emphasis on Quantity rather than Quality, pointing out that Jesus becoming a man and dying for sinners shows that God values Quality (virtue, love) more than Quantity (knowledge, power, infinity, etc). 1Cor 1:22-25 ..the Jews ask for signs, and the Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block, and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. The apostle Paul said omniscience without love is nothing. 1Cor 13:2 ..if I have prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge (Latin translation: " omnem scientiam"), and if I have all faith so that I can remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.Our idea of perfection should submit itself to the truth that "God is love" rather than the idea that God is Infinity. The Bible never says "God is Knowledge" or "God is Information About the Future". I think that perfect knowledge is whatever knowledge suits God's loving character best. If the loving thing for God to do was to always know the future then I'm sure God would make sure he knew all the future! If God saw that it was better to leave some things open for his own future choices or for the future choices of humans and angels, then I'd say that perfect knowledge is always open to learning new experiences. God is completely able to change his mind as Jeremiah 18 teaches with the potter's vessel story. If perfect knowledge meant that God knows all of his own future then how could he ever change his mind about anything? Perfect knowledge seems to be a living changing knowledge rather than a frozen infinite knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by logic on Apr 12, 2010 11:41:25 GMT -5
I'll have to take a more in-depth look at them and what "perfect in knowledge" means. I think there is a wrong idea of perfection - a frozen (unchanging) perfection. A lot of people theorize about God being perfect as a frozen, abstract infinity rather than a living, personal, loving being. One man characterized this as an emphasis on Quantity rather than Quality, pointing out that Jesus becoming a man and dying for sinners shows that God values Quality (virtue, love) more than Quantity (knowledge, power, infinity, etc).[/quote]I agree, this is the very thing which I am arguing here: forums.crosswalk.com/fb.aspx?m=4830208People confuse the two "natures" of God. There are two parts of God's nature. One is His volitional, moral nature, which He chooses. The other is His inherent/innate, non-moral nature or is natural attributes which are inherent or innate; not chosen God's Physical nature or His natural attributes are is all the omnies (omnipotent...etc...), His eternalness & infiniteness, eternalness, intelligence, wisdom, self existence, Sovereign, Triuneness, Eternalness...etc... God's Moral, virtuous nature is His virtues... holiness, righteousness, goodness, lovingness, mercifullness, graciousness, faithfulness, truthfulness...etc... God never chose His physical nature, but He does choose to keep His moral nature as to not defile it.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Apr 12, 2010 13:00:23 GMT -5
I agree with you about God's 'moral nature'. I usually use the word 'character' or 'moral character' in order to avoid confusion for people who think of everything as being a result of 'nature'. The way I see it, God has one nature which includes his free will. God doesn't choose to have free will because that would be absurd. God's free will is a natural attribute (so-to-speak). God's ultimate intention is the well-being of himself, his son Jesus, and his kingdom. This intention is an action of God's will called benevolence (bene = good [as in beneficial?], volence = voluntary, volition). Benevolence is not part of God's nature but is an internal action of God's will. Benevolence is voluntary by definition. Love and benevolence are the same thing. Denying God's free will results in a denial of God's love. God's moral quality is a result of the actions of God's will. If God's ultimate intention is benevolent then the moral quality of God, his moral character, is good. If God had all knowledge and all power to move mountains and such but his ultimate intention was not benevolence he would "not have love" and would have to say "I have not love, I am nothing".
I agree with what you were saying in the crosswalk thread. If God had no free will he would just be a machine. This reminds me of what Paul said in Romans about how the nations worshiped the creature rather than the creator.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Apr 12, 2010 13:09:38 GMT -5
It seems to me that Calvinism denies God's free will, or ability to make choices, and Exhaustive Foreknowledge apparently denies God's ability to change his mind (which is also free will). Both views prevent God from changing his mind about anything. This seems to me to contradict omnipotence.
|
|
|
Post by logic on Apr 12, 2010 13:23:55 GMT -5
It seems to me that Calvinism denies God's free will, or ability to make choices, and Exhaustive Foreknowledge apparently denies God's ability to change his mind (which is also free will). Both views prevent God from changing his mind about anything. This seems to me to contradict omnipotence. Have you read the thing I found in the book called " Divine Nescience of Future Contingencies a Necessity" by L D. Mc Cabe? It basically said: If absolute foreknowledge be true (God completely knowing the future from eternity past), it is impossible for God to put forth or to originate/initiate/create a simple act of His will to choose anything new to himself, because all His free will actions that He will ever put forth were foreknown to Him from all eternity. If they were always foreknown to Him from eternity, then they are as eternal as He is. If they are as eternal as He is, then He could not have originated/initiated/created them (because they are eternal, having no beginning as Himself); God could not have originated them any more than he could originate/create Himself. Now, if God did not originate/initiate/create His volitions/choices, then He cannot have a free-will, because He can not have the volition to bring a new thought to Himself which would change the present moment in which He is dwelling. If God does not have a free-will to have new thoughts, then He cannot be a person. If God is not a person He must be impersonal, if He really exists at all. If He is impersonal He must be without consciousness (because a person has consciousness but an inanimate object or force doesn't). If He is without consciousness and has a real existence, He must be without moral character or sympathy. He must be mechanized in all His activities and movements from eternity to eternity, wholly by blind and unyielding, not to be persuaded or affected even by prayer. I modified his words to make more sence to the average reader. He went on to say that the thought leads into panthism: If this be so, then the pantheistic theory of Deity is established beyond controversy, and the Christian religion is absolutely vanquished (destroyed or defeated) and driven from the field. If pantheism is true, the whole universe of contingencies (possibilities or chance) is at once swept out of existence. All moral distinctions, moral government, human responsibility are meaningless propositions. Moral night, without a single star of hope to illumine the awful future, broods far and wide over an abandoned world and a bankrupt humanity. Grant to the pantheist your undue assumption of absolute prescience (foreknowledge) , and he (the pantheist) asks and needs no more. Never after that can you break the merciless chain with which he ( the pantheist) first binds you, and then proceeds to spoil this glorious house of the almighty Father of the universe.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Apr 12, 2010 20:12:32 GMT -5
That's intense. It seems totally logical.
The bible is so contrary to the 'wisdom of the world'..
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 17, 2010 16:46:39 GMT -5
I read both of McCabe's books years ago and enjoyed them. His books are the first official book that I know of on the open view. It was the writings of L. D. McCabe that influenced Gordon C. Olson, who influenced Harry Conn, Winkie Pratney, etc.
|
|
|
Post by dougrenz on Apr 28, 2010 13:44:25 GMT -5
What is Winkie Pratney's theology?
Doug
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on May 8, 2010 0:20:52 GMT -5
Winkie Pratney believes in moral government theology and open theism. He really likes the writings of Charles Finney and Gordon Olson.
|
|