Genus/Species and God

Status
Not open for further replies.
BayouHuguenot said:
The problem is, if you say "wholly other" in theological conversation today it automatically means Karl Barth unless you immediately qualify otherwise. On the other hand, if you say archetypal, it doesn't mean Karl Barth.
Click to expand...

It is sad what you wrote is true. By avoiding the term wholly other the idea of God being altogether other had been mostly lost. What is especially sad is what is being taught in seminaries today, as if there is such thing as communicable attributes in the archetypal sense. If our pastors and RE do not understand this 101 class of the doctrine of God what can we expect of the person in the pews like you and I?
 
earl40 said:
It is sad what you wrote is true. By avoiding the term wholly other the idea of God being altogether other had been mostly lost. What is especially sad is what is being taught in seminaries today, as if there is such thing as communicable attributes in the archetypal sense. If our pastors and RE do not understand this 101 class of the doctrine of God what can we expect of the person in the pews like you and I?
Click to expand...

I'm curious: can you show me Reformed orthodox before Karl Barth who called God "Wholly Other?"
 
BayouHuguenot said:
Depends on how that is glossed. Is God so wholly other that nothing can be predicated of him, including the claim that God is wholly other? That's a reason that Reformed orthodox avoided that kind of language about God.
Click to expand...
Didn't he mean by that terminology that God exists so far beyond us, as being the only eternal Being, that we can only relate to Him through the scriptures and in Jesus Christ, as otherwise it would be like a ant trying to understand a man?
 
earl40 said:
It is sad what you wrote is true. By avoiding the term wholly other the idea of God being altogether other had been mostly lost. What is especially sad is what is being taught in seminaries today, as if there is such thing as communicable attributes in the archetypal sense. If our pastors and RE do not understand this 101 class of the doctrine of God what can we expect of the person in the pews like you and I?
Click to expand...
what we can know nd understand about God come through to us in the scriptures and in Jesus, but we do not have an exhaustive knowledge of Him, as he is beyond our means to fully grasp, more of the need to know information.
 
Dachaser said:
Didn't he mean by that terminology that God exists so far beyond us, as being the only eternal Being, that we can only relate to Him through the scriptures and in Jesus Christ, as otherwise it would be like a ant trying to understand a man?
Click to expand...

That's what Earl meant. That's not what Barth meant, who popularized that term.
 
Barth's idea of a wholly other God is wholly un-Reformed. Romans 1:19-22 says that God's invisible attributes are plainly seen in creation. And through creation man knows God but refuses to honor Him.
 
Worth a read is the attached, written by Van Til when Barth was still completing his magnum opus. This is Van Til being perspicuous and pointed. ;)

"Never in the history of the church has the triune God been so completely and inextricably intertwined with his own creature as he has been in modern dialectical thought." - Van Til
 

Attachments

  • Barth Orthodox -- Van Til.pdf
    182.1 KB · Views: 2
Ask Mr. Religion said:
Worth a read is the attached, written by Van Til when Barth was still completing his magnum opus. This is Van Til being perspicuous and pointed. ;)

"Never in the history of the church has the triune God been so completely and inextricably intertwined with his own creature as he has been in modern dialectical thought." - Van Til
Click to expand...

This may an instance where Van Til mixed the ectypal with the archyetypal?
 
earl40 said:
Of course I do. :) That general revelation is not God in Himself. It is manifesting His works and not His essence.
Click to expand...

But we don't know God in himself in special revelation, either.

Are unbelievers, having only general revelation, able to know God, or be said to be knowing God (gnontes ton theon).
 
BayouHuguenot said:
But we don't know God in himself in special revelation, either.
Click to expand...

I agree.
BayouHuguenot said:
Are unbelievers, having only general revelation, able to know God, or be said to be knowing God (gnontes ton theon).
Click to expand...

This is where I think you are mixing up ectypal theology with archetypal theology. Even unbelievers know there is a God via ectype theology, but that they do not now him through Jesus. Believers know God through Jesus who is the ultimate ectypal type.
 
earl40 said:
I agree.


This is where I think you are mixing up ectypal theology with archetypal theology. Even unbelievers know there is a God via ectype theology, but that they do not now him through Jesus. Believers know God through Jesus who is the ultimate ectypal type.
Click to expand...

I didn't confuse anything. Even our special revelation is ectypal. You originally said in post #40

If Barth did express such in what you wrote he is correct.
Click to expand...
 
BayouHuguenot said:
I didn't confuse anything. Even our special revelation is ectypal. You originally said in post #40
Click to expand...

Can you see your quote of Barth as you believing it is fundamentally incorrect, and of your follow up questions to me suggesting such? :)
 
In post #39 I wrote, summarizing Barth:

God is so transcendent as to be completely unknowable except in the dynamic act of Revelation in Christ Jesus.
Click to expand...

I believe Barth is wrong, as this denies Psalm 19.

You responded in post #40:

If Barth did express such in what you wrote he is correct.
Click to expand...

In post #44 you note:

That general revelation is not God in Himself. It is manifesting His works and not His essence.
Click to expand...

This is a red herring, since even in special revelation we don't know God in his essence.

So to conclude, if you agree with Barth per post #40, then you can't affirm Psalm 19.
 
BayouHuguenot said:
God is so transcendent as to be completely unknowable except in the dynamic act of Revelation in Christ Jesus.
Click to expand...
I believe Barth is wrong, as this denies Psalm 19.
Click to expand...

Barth is right when speaking of the archetypal God. The problem with Bart, from what I have read, is that he applies the unknowably of God in the ectypal revelation. So yes you are correct that Bart is wrong about Psalm 19, but right IF he only applied this to God in se.

Believe it or not we may agree with each other. The only quibble I have in your original quote the of one word bolded below....

God is so transcendent as to be completely unknowable except in the dynamic act of Revelation in Christ Jesus. Yes we can know God in the ectypal sense but not in the archetypal sense. No exceptions allowed. :)
 
Goodcheer68 said:
Barth's idea of a wholly other God is wholly un-Reformed. Romans 1:19-22 says that God's invisible attributes are plainly seen in creation. And through creation man knows God but refuses to honor Him.
Click to expand...
God makes Himself known to us His creation, and by the written word, and in Jesus Christ.
 
BayouHuguenot said:
But we don't know God in himself in special revelation, either.

Are unbelievers, having only general revelation, able to know God, or be said to be knowing God (gnontes ton theon).
Click to expand...
Didn't Jesus say to us though if we have seen and known Him, which we do in the scriptures, than we have also seen and known the Father?
 
earl40 said:
Barth is right when speaking of the archetypal God. The problem with Bart, from what I have read, is that he applies the unknowably of God in the ectypal revelation. So yes you are correct that Bart is wrong about Psalm 19, but right IF he only applied this to God in se.

Believe it or not we may agree with each other. The only quibble I have in your original quote the of one word bolded below....

God is so transcendent as to be completely unknowable except in the dynamic act of Revelation in Christ Jesus. Yes we can know God in the ectypal sense but not in the archetypal sense. No exceptions allowed. :)
Click to expand...

We agree in the sense that we both hold to the a/e distinction. The red flags for many of us is that language like "wholly Other" is almost always Barthian.
 
Dachaser said:
He did not to Inerrant and fully inspired scripture viewpoint though, correct?
Click to expand...
Please correct the grammar above and perhaps an answer may be provided. It appears the word "hold" is missing before "to" above, no? Review your posts after submitting them. Make corrections so we are not forced to become mind readers. ;)
 
BayouHuguenot said:
We agree in the sense that we both hold to the a/e distinction. The red flags for many of us is that language like "wholly Other" is almost always Barthian.
Click to expand...

I agree, though when we speak of such distinctions most (approx 95 plus percent) would not agree with such in the "reformed" world today. I know this is true for I have not found one who agrees in substance that God is holy other. That includes people like RC Sproul and he was no slouch.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

alexandermsmith
  • Locked
God and Hypotheticals
Replies
3
Views
1K
MW
M
johnny_redeemed
  • Locked
God and Time
2
Replies
49
Views
7K
cupotea
cupotea
R
  • Locked
God and time
Replies
3
Views
2K
A_Wild_Boar
A
steven-nemes
  • Locked
God and sin and sovereignty
Replies
3
Views
2K
Geneva
G
Justified
  • Locked
Necessitarianism, God and Man?
Replies
10
Views
2K
RamistThomist
RamistThomist
Back
Top