Comments on: Connecting Emergent Ideas (1 of 2)

By: Loneliness and the Postmodern View of Language | The A-Team Blog

Loneliness and the Postmodern View of Language | The A-Team Blog — Sat, 03 Apr 2010 03:15:11 +0000

[…] that allowed him to “go beyond” the words of the Bible to find God (as I described here and here). But by doing so, he lost any hope of relating in a meaningful way to a true, personal […]

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 12 May 2006 17:40:32 +0000

Stephen, at the bottom of our left-hand column, just below our archives, there's a login section with the link “Create Reader Account.” Thanks for joining!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 12 May 2006 16:23:06 +0000

I wish, but no.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 12 May 2006 16:20:38 +0000

Yes, way to many Brians in the discussion. W, M, and Mc.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 12 May 2006 16:00:40 +0000

Brian W., are you related to John Wipf of Wipf & Stock publishers?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 12 May 2006 15:58:33 +0000

Also congrats to everyone. We are into the 50

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 12 May 2006 14:25:59 +0000

mune,
Some of your questions, I address in my response to Sam, so refer there.
The one question that isn't so much addressed above is your 4th question. McLaren says, “here we argue about God in ways that would make you think that we have great confidence in our words to capture God”. In this, McLaren is right. I do think there is implicit presumption that we someone are capturing God by the use of our language. The great theologian Charles Hodge, for example, states in his systematic theology that we have a “perfectly clear and distinct idea of the infinity of God” and that “we know God in the same sense in which we know ourselves and things out of ourselves” (vol 1 359, 365) Wow! McLaren and others are rebelling against this kind of thinking and rightfully so!
Now, I think McLaren goes further than I would concerning the use of language, but I think this is his impetus.
Make sure you do read the article. Also, for Sam too, his book Reforming the Doctrine of God is so very helpful. I must say, he was my theology prof in seminary, so that's why I refer to him frequently.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 12 May 2006 14:11:36 +0000

We are not using the word “define” in the same way. I don't mean “to attribute meaning” with the word define. When I speak of defining, I'm refering to our use of language to predicate. By definition, the use of predicates is the placing of an object in a set, marking it off, limiting, it from other sets so as to distinguish it from other objects. This is how we communciate to each. So, if I say “God is strong,” this logically means that God is in the set of “things that are strong”. If God is in this set, then God is limited by the predication, which denies his infinity. Holding true to the meta-distiction keeps us from putting God in a set of finite things that are “strong”, or “wise”, or whatever. God must transcend the set, in fact, must be the origin, condition and goal of the set.
Yes, I would say you understand me correctly concerning the whole 10 and infinity analogy. Numbers wouldn't exist if it wasn't for their origin and condition, which is infinity. So yes, creaturely existent is dependent on it's origin and condition, which is the infinite trinitarian God. Paul affirms this in Acts 17:28 “for in him we live and move and have our being.”
Now, some might say, “So creation is in God? Are you a panentheist?” No, because I'm not a theist. This brings another topic up that will take another 50 posts. But let me just touch on it briefly. Unfortunately, evangelicalism hasn't taken the trinitarian relationship seriously either. Listen to Alvin Plantiga's definition of theism in his contribution to the book Faith and Rationality ” page 82, “the belief, first, that there exists a person of a certain sort-a being who acts, holds beliefs and has aims and purposes. This person, secondly, is immaterial, exists a se, is perfect in goodness, knowlege and power, and is such that the world depends on him for its existence.” Isn't that amazing. God is a person? Every Christian should jump up and say, “God's not a person! God's is the dynamic relationship of Father, Son, Holy Spirit.”
The presumption of God as a single subject is all over evangelical theology. I have a message from J Piper, whom I love, say that God is the most desirable “person” in all the universe. Yikes, God is not a person. In seminary, I was confronted on this by my seminary professor. He challenged me to see that while I affirmed the trinity with my mouth, my theology conceived of God as a finite single subject God.
If God is a single subject, a “being” or “person” then creation finding its existence “in God” is disturbing because then the question is, “where in God's person is creation? How are they separate and distinct.” But what if God is really trinitarian? Then creation isn't “in a person”, but is infused in the relationship between Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Sounds a lot like scripture to me: In Christ, I'm connected to the Heavenly Father by the power of the Holy Spirit.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 12 May 2006 04:49:48 +0000

Hmmm… I read poorly. Change the SD to WI.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 12 May 2006 04:45:36 +0000

And Brian, assuming you are the Brian W. at the website you name links to, you have a lovely family. Whenever this converation drops off, I pray Gob blesses you, your family and your ministry in SD.
And because i now have to know, is the “p” or the “f” silent? Or neither?