Thread: Neo-Orthodoxy Pt1 R.C. Sproul

Here is a great sermon/teaching by Sproul on why God isn't wholly other. Enjoy!

Way Cool!!! Sproul smash's Barth. In WWF style even!

Yep, he's da man!!!!

Thanks Sarah! Pt 2 is up now as well.

Originally Posted by OPC'n

Yep, he's da man!!!!

AMEN!

Spoul helped me to leave broad evangelicalism for a more consistent 5pt Calvinism, he helped me (Providence of God MP3) deal with one of my sons who was a prodigal, and he re-energized my passion for theology.

I'm traveling between Fayetteville (2nd son's house) and Joplin to visit my son in the hospital today. Jeanette and I will listen to both parts of his lecture.

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Originally Posted by OPC'n

Yep, he's da man!!!!

AMEN!

Spoul helped me to leave broad evangelicalism for a more consistent 5pt Calvinism, he helped me (Providence of God MP3) deal with one of my sons who was a prodigal, and he re-energized my passion for theology.

I'm traveling between Fayetteville (2nd son's house) and Joplin to visit my son in the hospital today. Jeanette and I will listen to both parts of his lecture.

He was the one who who brought me into the reformed faith. This subject he has taught on before, and I remember when I first heard it I had to recognize that what Paul Washer had taught about God being wholly other was wrong. That's when I realized that emtionally charged sermons are not always correct just bc they make you cry. One must be a berean and make sure what is taught is correct. I really like Sproul bc he is passionate about the Word of God but calm and balanced much like my own pastor.

I am sorry for my ignorance here, but could someone please expand on what the phrase "wholly other" means, specifically in this context?

Originally Posted by Andres

I am sorry for my ignorance here, but could someone please expand on what the phrase "wholly other" means, specifically in this context?

Some preacher such as Paul Washer believe that God is so holy (which in the Hebrew language means to cut and separate) that He is NOTHING like us. While it is true that God is very holy and we could never measure up to Him, He indeed is something like us otherwise (as Sproul teaches) not only would we not know anything of Him we couldn't know anything of Him. He would speak in a language we could not understand for instance. We would be without love, peace, joy etc attributes that are who He is which are commutable attributes to us. If He were wholly other (remembering that holy means to cut and separate and that's why Paul thinks He is nothing like us), then we would not have any of the attributes that He is and we could never strive via the Holy Spirit to attain them through sanctification. Listen to his sermon he makes more sense than I do.

Originally Posted by OPC'n

Originally Posted by Andres

I am sorry for my ignorance here, but could someone please expand on what the phrase "wholly other" means, specifically in this context?

Some preacher such as Paul Washer believe that God is so holy (which in the Hebrew language means to cut and separate) that He is NOTHING like us. While it is true that God is very holy and we could never measure up to Him, He indeed is something like us otherwise (as Sproul teaches) not only would we not know anything of Him we couldn't know anything of Him. He would speak in a language we could not understand for instance. We would be without love, peace, joy etc attributes that are who He is which are commutable attributes to us. If He were wholly other (remembering that holy means to cut and separate and that's why Paul thinks He is nothing like us), then we would not have any of the attributes that He is and we could never strive via the Holy Spirit to attain them through sanctification. Listen to his sermon he makes more sense than I do.

Thank you Sarah for your brief explanation. I presume that Washer and Sproul are limiting the discussion to the attributes of God the Father only and therefore any thoughts on the duality of Christ are withheld?
Finally, wouldn't the phrase be "holy other" or is it "wholly" as in complete. Sorry, but I guess I have not given this much thought before, but thank you as I now will and I am definitely interested in hearing the sermon.

It is wholly other and here's why: holy in the Hebrew language means "to cut and separate" because of this definition ppl like Paul Washer take that definition and come up with yet another definition and say that since God is holy (cut and separated from us) then that must mean that He is wholly (entirely) different or nothing like us. I believe that Paul Washer believes the wholly other of Christ would be His divine nature and wouldn't include His human nature. Which if he thought hard about that one wouldn't be able to come to his conclusion bc if God were wholly other than us He would have never been able to become man. God is other than us just not wholly other than us.

19th Century Liberalism emphasized the immanence of God. The supernatural was neutered, denied, and re-explained. A typical lib explanation of the miracle of the loaves, for example, suggests that Jesus used moral susasion to get his listeners to share their lunches with their less well off neighbors on the hillside.

Neo-orthodoxy placed the stress upon the transcendence of God. He was not the Father of us all and our bud, he was "wholly other" ("totaliter aliter" - totally other). The emphasis was upon the "otherness" of God, the mysterium tremendum.

The problem with such a construction is that if God is truly wholly other, then there is no basis for communication between God and us. In place of orthodoxy and its emphasis upon an "analogy of being" (analogia entis), neo-orthodoxy posited an analogy of relationship.

Moved to Theological forum.

Great synopsis on Neo-Orthodoxy by Sproul if anyone hasn't listened to it. It's actually a good teaching series in general covering Contemporary Theological issues.

Originally Posted by OPC'n

It is wholly other and here's why: holy in the Hebrew language means "to cut and separate" because of this definition ppl like Paul Washer take that definition and come up with yet another definition and say that since God is holy (cut and separated from us) then that must mean that He is wholly (entirely) different or nothing like us. I believe that Paul Washer believes the wholly other of Christ would be His divine nature and wouldn't include His human nature. Which if he thought hard about that one wouldn't be able to come to his conclusion bc if God were wholly other than us He would have never been able to become man. God is other than us just not wholly other than us.

Sarah, Just to be fair. I think you should find out what Paul Washer means when he says God is wholly other than our selves. If you 've heard his explanation and have a mp3 I would be happy to hear it...

Originally Posted by XBlackWaterX

Originally Posted by OPC'n

It is wholly other and here's why: holy in the Hebrew language means "to cut and separate" because of this definition ppl like Paul Washer take that definition and come up with yet another definition and say that since God is holy (cut and separated from us) then that must mean that He is wholly (entirely) different or nothing like us. I believe that Paul Washer believes the wholly other of Christ would be His divine nature and wouldn't include His human nature. Which if he thought hard about that one wouldn't be able to come to his conclusion bc if God were wholly other than us He would have never been able to become man. God is other than us just not wholly other than us.

Sarah, Just to be fair. I think you should find out what Paul Washer means when he says God is wholly other than our selves. If you 've heard his explanation and have a mp3 I would be happy to hear it...

I have heard and I will try to find it for you.

Originally Posted by OPC'n

Originally Posted by XBlackWaterX

Originally Posted by OPC'n

It is wholly other and here's why: holy in the Hebrew language means "to cut and separate" because of this definition ppl like Paul Washer take that definition and come up with yet another definition and say that since God is holy (cut and separated from us) then that must mean that He is wholly (entirely) different or nothing like us. I believe that Paul Washer believes the wholly other of Christ would be His divine nature and wouldn't include His human nature. Which if he thought hard about that one wouldn't be able to come to his conclusion bc if God were wholly other than us He would have never been able to become man. God is other than us just not wholly other than us.

Sarah, Just to be fair. I think you should find out what Paul Washer means when he says God is wholly other than our selves. If you 've heard his explanation and have a mp3 I would be happy to hear it...

I have heard and I will try to find it for you.

Your the best.

How much does neo-orthodoxy and the concept of God being "wholly other" factor into the van Tillian-Clark disputes?

Originally Posted by XBlackWaterX

Originally Posted by OPC'n

Originally Posted by XBlackWaterX

Sarah, Just to be fair. I think you should find out what Paul Washer means when he says God is wholly other than our selves. If you 've heard his explanation and have a mp3 I would be happy to hear it...

I have heard and I will try to find it for you.

Your the best.

Hey, thanks! Here is the sermon of Paul about which I'm talking. In this sermon, he states that God is nothing like us and is completely different from us. I've heard the sermon before awhile ago so I didn't listen to the whole thing again. I only got to the part where he says this and where he starts talking about the "other" of God and meshed the two together....then I stopped listening since I don't agree with his belief system on this subject.

Originally Posted by OPC'n

Originally Posted by XBlackWaterX

Originally Posted by OPC'n

I have heard and I will try to find it for you.

Your the best.

Hey, thanks! Here is the sermon of Paul about which I'm talking. In this sermon, he states that God is nothing like us and is completely different from us. I've heard the sermon before awhile ago so I didn't listen to the whole thing again. I only got to the part where he says this and where he starts talking about the "other" of God and meshed the two together....then I stopped listening since I don't agree with his belief system on this subject.

Check your inbox.

Of course God is wholly other. Westminster Confession 7.1. Rejecting God's incomprehensibility is not a legitimate way to refute neo-orthodoxy's affirmation of it. It is rather in the area of God's knowability through condescending revelation that neo-orthodoxy must be challenged.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Of course God is wholly other. Westminster Confession 7.1. Rejecting God's incomprehensibility is not a legitimate way to refute neo-orthodoxy's affirmation of it. It is rather in the area of God's knowability through condescending revelation that neo-orthodoxy must be challenged.

If God were wholly other, we couldn't know anything about Him. It would be impossible for us to understand anything He had to say. He isn't wholly other. Have you listened to Sproul's sermon? Stating that God is not wholly other isn't rejecting His incomprehensibility. Although we don't comprehend Him completely, we do know something of Him. If He were wholly other then He would be completely and utterly incomprehensible and we would know nothing of Him

Originally Posted by OPC'n

If God were wholly other, we couldn't know anything about Him. It would be impossible for us to understand anything He had to say. He isn't wholly other. Have you listened to Sproul's sermon?

"Condescension" is the missing link here and provides a sound solution to your false dilemma. I don't have time to listen to this particular message by Sproul at the moment, but I am well acquainted with the Gerstner-Sproul-Ligonier evidential apologetic method.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by OPC'n

If God were wholly other, we couldn't know anything about Him. It would be impossible for us to understand anything He had to say. He isn't wholly other. Have you listened to Sproul's sermon?

"Condescension" is the missing link here and provides a sound solution to your false dilemma. I don't have time to listen to this particular message by Sproul at the moment, but I am well acquainted with the Gerstner-Sproul-Ligonier evidential apologetic method.

I don't think it's a false dilemma....it's very logical. If God is nothing like us, then He would be completely incapable of communicating to us anything about who He is. We would be unable to receive His communicable attributes etc. I think you should take the time to listen to his sermon it's not that long. I think once you heard it you would agree.

Originally Posted by OPC'n

I don't think it's a false dilemma....it's very logical. If God is nothing like us, then He would be completely incapable of communicating to us anything about who He is. We would be unable to receive His communicable attributes etc. I think you should take the time to listen to his sermon it's not that long. I think once you heard it you would agree.

I will have a listen on Monday morning but it would have to be a remarkable collection of arguments to overturn a fundamental metaphysic of the reformed tradition. As for communicable attributes, these are predicated of God in such a way as they belong properly and only to Him. "Thou only art holy;" "the only wise God."

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by OPC'n

I don't think it's a false dilemma....it's very logical. If God is nothing like us, then He would be completely incapable of communicating to us anything about who He is. We would be unable to receive His communicable attributes etc. I think you should take the time to listen to his sermon it's not that long. I think once you heard it you would agree.

I will have a listen on Monday morning but it would have to be a remarkable collection of arguments to overturn a fundamental metaphysic of the reformed tradition. As for communicable attributes, these are predicated of God in such a way as they belong properly and only to Him. "Thou only art holy;" "the only wise God."

God not being wholly other is of the reformed faith. A man named Barth was trying to fight the liberals of his time when they were trying to pull God down to an inappropriate level. He went overboard in his doctrine of wholly other. He basically was fighting both the liberals on their beliefs and the reformed on their beliefs. I might not be understanding what you are saying but are you saying that God doesn't have any attributes that are communicable to mankind? They of course belong to God since His attributes are who He is. But they don't belong only to Him only bc He decided to give us some of His attributes.....do we defile them?....yes, our love, peace etc are riddled with sin but they are indeed attributes given to us by God. When we are glorified we will exhibit these attributes perfectly. His non-communicable attributes are attributes we will never have. Perhaps you mean something different from what I got from your sentence tho.

Originally Posted by OPC'n

They of course belong to God since His attributes are who He is. But they don't belong only to Him only bc He decided to give us some of His attributes.....

Uh?

Sorry, . . .but creatures . . .even redeemed creatures . . .can never possess the attributes of God. They can only reflect the Creator's attributes and benefit from them.

do we defile them?

We SURE would, if they were ours to defile. But the creature cannot ever defile the attributes of their Maker. Not even the fall of mankind, affected the holiness, power, or excellency of God Almighty!

....yes, our love, peace etc are riddled with sin but they are indeed attributes given to us by God.

Grace is given to us by God, that gives us access to heaven and a sharing in the glory of God . . .but creatures remain creatures, even in glory. God does not ever transer divinity to the works of His hands, except through divine representation.

When we are glorified we will exhibit these attributes perfectly.

No. We will only benefit from and reflect God's glory. Divine attributes will never be inherent to those created by Him.

His non-communicable attributes are attributes we will never have.

Right.

Originally Posted by OPC'n

God not being wholly other is of the reformed faith.

No, it is not; please read WCF 7.1.

Originally Posted by OPC'n

I might not be understanding what you are saying but are you saying that God doesn't have any attributes that are communicable to mankind?

No; what I am saying is that they are "communicated;" the very fact that they are communicated means that the creature can never possess them essentially. If God only "possesses" them essentially then it is obvious that God is wholly other even in the "possession" of these communicable attributes. Which is why reformed divines prefer to say that He "is" them rather than "possesses" them.

Originally Posted by TeachingTulip

Originally Posted by OPC'n

They of course belong to God since His attributes are who He is. But they don't belong only to Him only bc He decided to give us some of His attributes.....

Uh?

No, creatures . . .even redeemed creatures . . .can never possess the attributes of God. They can only reflect the Creator's attributes and benefit from them.

do we defile them?

We SURE would, if they were ours to defile. But the creature cannot ever defile the attributes of their Maker. Not even the fall of mankind, affected the holiness, power, or excellency of God Almighty!




Grace is given to us by God, that gives us access to heaven and a sharing in the glory of God . . .but creatures remain creatures, even in glory. God does not share His divine attributes with the works of His hands.

When we are glorified we will exhibit these attributes perfectly.

No. We will only benefit from and reflect God's glory. Divine attributes will never be inherent to those created by Him.

His non-communicable attributes are attributes we will never have.

Right.

I will point you to Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology (or any other reformer's work) where he talks about the communicable attributes of God. I do have one question for you, however. If we are being made into God's imagine and "we shall be like Him when He appears" which part of that is untrue? We will never have a divine nature....so we won't be like Him in that manner and we are not being made into His image of divineness. So how do you think we are being made into His image? Are we only going to be mirrors who reflect Who God is or are we going to actually be made into His image by being perfectly loving etc? To not have these attributes and to only mirror them, is to not be a new creation. When sin is finally defeated in you and me what will we be?....mirrors? The change that will come about us will be a sure change. I'm not sure where you get your theology....

Originally Posted by OPC'n

Originally Posted by TeachingTulip

Originally Posted by OPC'n

They of course belong to God since His attributes are who He is. But they don't belong only to Him only bc He decided to give us some of His attributes.....

Uh?

No, creatures . . .even redeemed creatures . . .can never possess the attributes of God. They can only reflect the Creator's attributes and benefit from them.





We SURE would, if they were ours to defile. But the creature cannot ever defile the attributes of their Maker. Not even the fall of mankind, affected the holiness, power, or excellency of God Almighty!




Grace is given to us by God, that gives us access to heaven and a sharing in the glory of God . . .but creatures remain creatures, even in glory. God does not share His divine attributes with the works of His hands.




No. We will only benefit from and reflect God's glory. Divine attributes will never be inherent to those created by Him.

His non-communicable attributes are attributes we will never have.

Right.

I will point you to Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology (or any other reformer's work) where he talks about the communicable attributes of God. I do have one question for you, however. If we are being made into God's imagine and "we shall be like Him when He appears" which part of that is untrue? We will never have a divine nature....so we won't be like Him in that manner and we are not being made into His image of divineness. So how do you think we are being made into His image? Are we only going to be mirrors who reflect Who God is or are we going to actually be made into His image by being perfectly loving etc? To not have these attributes and to only mirror them, is to not be a new creation. When sin is finally defeated in you and me what will we be?....mirrors? The change that will come about us will be a sure change. I'm not sure where you get your theology....

I hope my theology and beliefs are biblical and according to Holy Scripture!

If Christ was willing to humble Himself, to merely reflect the image of God, in order to identify with creatures . . .why would creatures redeemed by that act of humility, attempt to elevate themselves to divine status?

For myself, I hope, and am happy to anticipate living in the reflected glory of God forever.

I do not desire to be like God.

I am satisfied that Holy God has condescended to be like me, in order to redeem my soul.

Originally Posted by TeachingTulip

Originally Posted by OPC'n

Originally Posted by TeachingTulip

Uh?

No, creatures . . .even redeemed creatures . . .can never possess the attributes of God. They can only reflect the Creator's attributes and benefit from them.





We SURE would, if they were ours to defile. But the creature cannot ever defile the attributes of their Maker. Not even the fall of mankind, affected the holiness, power, or excellency of God Almighty!




Grace is given to us by God, that gives us access to heaven and a sharing in the glory of God . . .but creatures remain creatures, even in glory. God does not share His divine attributes with the works of His hands.




No. We will only benefit from and reflect God's glory. Divine attributes will never be inherent to those created by Him.





Right.

I will point you to Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology (or any other reformer's work) where he talks about the communicable attributes of God. I do have one question for you, however. If we are being made into God's imagine and "we shall be like Him when He appears" which part of that is untrue? We will never have a divine nature....so we won't be like Him in that manner and we are not being made into His image of divineness. So how do you think we are being made into His image? Are we only going to be mirrors who reflect Who God is or are we going to actually be made into His image by being perfectly loving etc? To not have these attributes and to only mirror them, is to not be a new creation. When sin is finally defeated in you and me what will we be?....mirrors? The change that will come about us will be a sure change. I'm not sure where you get your theology....

I hope my theology and beliefs are biblical and according to Holy Scripture!

If Christ was willing to humble Himself, to merely reflect the image of God, in order to identify with creatures . . .why would creatures redeemed by that act of humility, attempt to elevate themselves to divine status?

For myself, I hope, and am happy to anticipate living in the reflected glory of God forever.

I do not desire to be like God.

I am satisfied that Holy God has condescended to be like me, in order to redeem my soul.

I just got through saying that we would never be divine...slow down and read what I write. Christ never just merely reflected the image of God....He was the image of God He never lost His divinity. Read Colossians 1:15 "He is the imagine of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation." He was always God Who became fully man. He didn't reflect God's imagine He was that image. And I'm not saying that we should desire to be like God in His divine nature but like it or not we shall be like Him. 1John 3:2 "Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is."

-----Added 9/11/2009 at 10:00:33 EST-----

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by OPC'n

God not being wholly other is of the reformed faith.

No, it is not; please read WCF 7.1.

Originally Posted by OPC'n

I might not be understanding what you are saying but are you saying that God doesn't have any attributes that are communicable to mankind?

No; what I am saying is that they are "communicated;" the very fact that they are communicated means that the creature can never possess them essentially. If God only "possesses" them essentially then it is obvious that God is wholly other even in the "possession" of these communicable attributes. Which is why reformed divines prefer to say that He "is" them rather than "possesses" them.

Yes it is. And I agree that He is His attributes and there lies the difference between Him and His creation. We will never be the source of His attributes but we will certainly possess them. There is a difference between being an attribute and merely possessing an attribute. God has non-communicable attributes and communicable attributes. All of the reformed writers that I have read agrees with this.

-----Added 9/11/2009 at 10:08:10 EST-----

The WCF states:

The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto Him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of Him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which He hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.

God could have never voluntarily condescended if He were wholly other than us. The WCF doesn't support the doctrine of wholly other in its statement here.

Originally Posted by OPC'n

And I'm not saying that we should desire to be like God in His divine nature but like it or not we shall be like Him. 1John 3:2 "Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is."

The text also says that He shall appear. Surely you do not think the divine nature shall appear. The referent must be to Christ. Therefore the conformity shall be to Christ's likeness.

Originally Posted by OPC'n

Yes it is. And I agree that He is His attributes and there lies the difference between Him and His creation.

How is it not wholly other "to be" rather than "to become?" I think you may be so determined to defend Sproul on this point that you are not taking time to think through the ramifications of what you are affirming.

Originally Posted by OPC'n

God could have never voluntarily condescended if He were wholly other than us. The WCF doesn't support the doctrine of wholly other in its statement here.

How does one "condescend" to what he already is? God must be other than what He condescended to do.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by OPC'n

God could have never voluntarily condescended if He were wholly other than us. The WCF doesn't support the doctrine of wholly other in its statement here.

How does one "condescend" to what he already is? God must be other than what He condescended to do.

He didn't condescend to what He already is. He is Who He is in all of eternity. He didn't have to change Who He is in order to condescend and give us a covenant. That was for eternity what He planned, and therefore, although they use this word it is merely for our understanding that God is other than us but because He for eternity "decided" to condescend and give us a covenant He is not wholly other. If He were wholly other, He could have never condescended and to give us a covenant. The mere fact that you know ANYTHING about God and have information about God in your head is evidence that He is not wholly other. He is other but not wholly other.

-----Added 9/11/2009 at 11:08:04 EST-----

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by OPC'n

And I'm not saying that we should desire to be like God in His divine nature but like it or not we shall be like Him. 1John 3:2 "Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is."

The text also says that He shall appear. Surely you do not think the divine nature shall appear. The referent must be to Christ. Therefore the conformity shall be to Christ's likeness.

Of course the reference is about Christ in His human form since He did raise from the grave and still has His human body. Do you believe that it is only a resurrected body that we will be like Him? You do not believe that we will be free of sin and exhibit prefect righteousness and perfect love? To exhibit anything is to possess those qualities....otherwise how could one exhibit them?

-----Added 9/11/2009 at 11:10:02 EST-----

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by OPC'n

Yes it is. And I agree that He is His attributes and there lies the difference between Him and His creation.

How is it not wholly other "to be" rather than "to become?" I think you may be so determined to defend Sproul on this point that you are not taking time to think through the ramifications of what you are affirming.

I think you are confusing "other" with "wholly other". No one is saying that God isn't "other" we are just saying that He isn't "wholly other".

Originally Posted by OPC'n

If He were wholly other, He could have never condescended and to give us a covenant. The mere fact that you know ANYTHING about God and have information about God in your head is evidence that He is not wholly other.

I think you are failing to grasp the point that what we know about God is a condescension to our creaturely limitations. Certainly the revelation is not wholly other, but that is because it is a condescension. What we know about God is not God as He is in Himself but God as He has condescended to reveal Himself.

Originally Posted by OPC'n

Of course the reference is about Christ in His human form since He did raise from the grave and still has His human body. Do you believe that it is only a resurrected body that we will be like Him? You do not believe that we will be free of sin and exhibit prefect righteousness and perfect love? To exhibit anything is to possess those qualities....otherwise how could one exhibit them?

I believe we will be free from sin and possess those attributes insofar as they are creaturely perfections; that is, they will always be communicated to us by God; we will never possess them essentially. But the very fact I am forced to make that qualification shows there is an "otherness" to these perfections which the creature cannot experience.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Of course God is wholly other. Westminster Confession 7.1. Rejecting God's incomprehensibility is not a legitimate way to refute neo-orthodoxy's affirmation of it. It is rather in the area of God's knowability through condescending revelation that neo-orthodoxy must be challenged.

We are created in his image. If we are in his image, though tainted by sin, we cannot be "wholly other" which would mean totally different ... we are an image, and an image has some similarity with the object of which it is an image.

To the extent we are in the image of God, we have some commonality with God. In fact we talk about communicable and incommunicable traits of God. If there are communicable traits, and God has in fact communicated those traits upon his creatures, then we cannot be wholly other.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by OPC'n

If He were wholly other, He could have never condescended and to give us a covenant. The mere fact that you know ANYTHING about God and have information about God in your head is evidence that He is not wholly other.

I think you are failing to grasp the point that what we know about God is a condescension to our creaturely limitations. Certainly the revelation is not wholly other, but that is because it is a condescension. What we know about God is not God as He is in Himself but God as He has condescended to reveal Himself.

Which makes Him other and incomprehensible but not wholly other and not wholly incomprehensible.

Originally Posted by OPC'n

Of course the reference is about Christ in His human form since He did raise from the grave and still has His human body. Do you believe that it is only a resurrected body that we will be like Him? You do not believe that we will be free of sin and exhibit prefect righteousness and perfect love? To exhibit anything is to possess those qualities....otherwise how could one exhibit them?

Originally Posted by armourbearer

believe we will be free from sin and possess those attributes insofar as they are creaturely perfections; that is, they will always be communicated to us by God; we will never possess them essentially. But the very fact I am forced to make that qualification shows there is an "otherness" to these perfections which the creature cannot experience.

I can agree that we will not possess these attributes apart from God, yes, with that I agree and never thought otherwise. We will never exist apart from God....He will always hold us and keep us in all aspects. We will never be independent from God. I never meant to say that if that's what how I sounded. But the fact that they are communicated to us and that we possess them by the sheer fact that God is constantly giving them to us, shows that He is not wholly other.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

No; what I am saying is that they are "communicated;" the very fact that they are communicated means that the creature can never possess them essentially. If God only "possesses" them essentially then it is obvious that God is wholly other even in the "possession" of these communicable attributes. Which is why reformed divines prefer to say that He "is" them rather than "possesses" them.

I think this clears things a little. What I would disagree with is that if God communicated attributes to his creatures that are part of his being in such a way as the attribute is part of the being of the creature, then God has made the creature in his being reflective of God, and therefore the creature is not totally different (even if mutably) from God.

Immutability is also part of the communicable traits, in that in the age to come, those who are found in Christ will be immutably reflecting perfectly (without flaw, not completely) the image of God.

Originally Posted by OPC'n

Which makes Him other and incomprehensible but not wholly other and not wholly incomprehensible.

So do you affirm that man can know God as He is in Himself or only as He has condescendingly revealed Himself. If the former, then you should omit the adjective "wholly" before "other." If the latter, then you are ascribing a whole otherness to God which man cannot know.

Originally Posted by OPC'n

But the fact that they are communicated to us and that we possess them by the sheer fact that God is constantly giving them to us, shows that He is not wholly other.

This does not follow. God is His attributes essentially and simply. Man merely possesses likenesses of them. "Thou only art holy." "The only wise God." "There is one good." The Scriptures everywhere speak of these attributes as belonging to God in a unique way that they cannot belong to any other. If that is the case, then He is "wholly other" even in the "possession" of communicable attributes.

Originally Posted by Brian Withnell

Immutability is also part of the communicable traits, in that in the age to come, those who are found in Christ will be immutably reflecting perfectly (without flaw, not completely) the image of God.

Unless you are prepared to ascribe an absolute perfection and changelessness to the saints, this statement is badly phrased and irrelevant to the present discussion. The fact that there is changelessness so far as moral perfection is concerned does not mean there is changelessness so far as condition is concerned. There His servants will serve Him and follow the Lamb whithersoever He goeth. Growth of capacity to know and enjoy God is assumed.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Man merely possesses likenesses of them. "Thou only art holy." "The only wise God." "There is one good." The Scriptures everywhere speak of these attributes as belonging to God in a unique way that they cannot belong to any other. If that is the case, then He is "wholly other" even in the "possession" of communicable attributes.

Then would you say that God could not impart some attribute, which is part of his nature, into the nature of the creature, such that it is as much in the being of the creature as it is in the being of God? It seems that for those in heaven, waiting the redemption of their bodies, have the quality of immutable purity. It may be that it is from God and that God is purity in a way that is has some differences from his creatures, but that the redeemed are in fact pure ... which is similar to (not totally different from) God.

Originally Posted by Brian Withnell

Then would you say that God could not impart some attribute, which is part of his nature, into the nature of the creature, such that it is as much in the being of the creature as it is in the being of God?

To affirm that God could or would impart such would be "impious and blasphemous," WCF 26:3.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by Brian Withnell

Then would you say that God could not impart some attribute, which is part of his nature, into the nature of the creature, such that it is as much in the being of the creature as it is in the being of God?

To affirm that God could or would impart such would be "impious and blasphemous," WCF 26:3.

There is a difference between substance and attribute. Attributes are not the substance.